MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275716321 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.41.4.1010d

Modeling Fruit Tree Architectural Growth, Source–Sink Interactions, and Physiology with L-PEACH

2006· article· en· W2275716321 on OpenAlexaff
T.M. DeJong, Romeo R. Favreau, Mitch Allen, Przemysław Prusinkiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArchitectural modelTree (set theory)Sink (geography)Decision tree modelBiological systemArchitectureBiologyData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling source–sink interactions and carbohydrate partitioning in plants requires a detailed model of plant architectural development, in which growth and function of each organ is modeled individually and carbohydrate transport among organs is modeled dynamically. L-PEACH is an L-system-based graphical simulation model that combines supply/demand concepts of carbon partitioning with an L-system model of tree architecture to create a distributed supply/demand system of carbon allocation within a growing tree. The whole plant is modeled as a branching network of sources and sinks, connected by conductive elements. An analogy to an electric network is used to calculate the flow and partitioning of carbohydrates between the individual components. The model can simulate multiple years of tree growth and be used to demonstrate effects of irrigation, crop load, and pruning on architectural development, tree growth, and carbon partitioning. Qualitative model outputs are viewed graphically as the tree “grows” on the computer screen while quantitative output data can be evaluated individually for each organ or collectively for an organ type using the MatLab software.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207