Quantifying the Permeability of the Apoplastic Water Barrier in Cosmos Petals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity of plants to minimize uncontrolled water loss is essential for survival in adverse and changing climatic conditions. In order to assess and compare the effectiveness of apoplastic barriers to water, the permeability of the barrier must first be quantified. Studies have accomplished this directly by quantifying tritium flux or indirectly by measuring the influx/efflux of water surrogates such as dyes, chlorophyll, and herbicides. Other studies have relied on comparative methods such as survival rates after drought. These methods rely on radioactive material, correlations, or qualitative comparisons. However, a quantitative method is necessary that directly measures water efflux and that allows easy comparisons within and between experiments, plant parts, plant species, and especially research laboratories. Here we outline in detail a gravimetric protocol first described by Schönherr and Lendzian (1981) that can be set up in less than half a day and completed in one to ten days depending on the plant barrier. This approach has been used in numerous studies on leaf and fruit cuticles and recently also on petals from cosmos (Cosmos bipinnatus; Buschhaus et al., 2015).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".