MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324722369 · doi:10.1139/x11-153

Needle browning and death in <i>Pinus pumila</i> in the alpine region of central Japan were not related to mechanical damage of cuticle and cuticle thickness

2011· article· en· W2324722369 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aoi Nakamoto, T. Ikeda, Emiko Maruta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuticle (hair)BrowningBotanyPlant cuticlePinus <genus>Epidermis (zoology)BiologyEvergreenHorticultureAnatomyWax

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The browning and death of needles of evergreen conifers in alpine regions occur mainly in early spring at the point where the shoot protrudes from the snowpack. They are thought to be caused by excessive transpiration due to mechanical damage to the cuticle or to a thinner cuticle. However, there are a few studies that do not necessarily agree with this idea. We assessed needle browning and death in Pinus pumila (Pallas) Regel. in the alpine region of Japan in relation to mechanical damage to the cuticle, cuticular resistance, and cuticle thickness. Mechanical damage was not observed on needle cuticles of Pinus pumila browning in a natural environment. The color of needles with artificially abraded cuticles changed from green to brown in the abraded part. However, the brown color at the abraded part differed from the brown of a browning needle in its natural environment. There was no correlation between cuticular resistance and cuticle thickness. Needle browning and death in P. pumila were not related to mechanical damage of the cuticle or to cuticle thickness but might be due to changes in the quality and structure of the cuticle and other stresses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207