Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Those who answer gardening questions from the general public will tell you that surprising numbers of people have a basic misconception about plants. The belief that plants build themselves from the soil is widespread even today, more than 300 years after proof showing this not to be so. Why such a belief still exists is puzzling. Consider the common practice of removing lawn clippings. If grass was simply built from soil, a lawn from which kilograms of clippings were removed during the growing season for the past dozen years would resemble a sunken garden, but it does not. Something additional to soil must go into building a plant. PHOTOSYNTHESIS: THE KEY We now understand that plants construct themselves from carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), water, and minerals with the aid of light energy. What plants make by this photosynthesis (putting together by light) is an endless supply of carbohydrates: sugars, starch, and cellulose. Other green organisms can also photosynthesize Plants are not the only organisms able to photosynthesize. Our oceans, lakes, and rivers are populated by a wide array of green organisms such as those algae which appear as green scum on ponds and lakes; the larger green, brown, and red algae, the seaweeds, found on or near seashores; and other microscopic organisms, the phytoplankton (certain bacteria, diatoms, dinoflagellates, and the smallest algae), which are especially abundant in our oceans.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".