MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589347434 · doi:10.1139/cjss2011-100

Comparing SPAD and atLEAF values for chlorophyll assessment in crop species

2012· article· en· W2589347434 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaCropEnvironmental scienceChlorophyllNitrogenMathematicsAgronomyHorticultureChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zhu, J., Tremblay, N. and Liang, Y. 2012. Comparing SPAD and atLEAF values for chlorophyll assessment in crop species. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 645-648. This research had the objective of determining whether a new light transmittance meter, the atLEAF, could be used as a less expensive alternative to the SPAD meter. Both meters measure transmittance through leaf surfaces in wavelengths associated with chlorophyll, and both provide an indirect method for determining the nitrogen status of crop canopies. The current study compared SPAD and atLEAF values under different conditions and for six crop species (canola, wheat, barley, potato and corn). The results indicated strong correlations among laboratory leaf chlorophyll (Chl) content, SPAD values, and atLEAF values. Equivalent performances were observed for SPAD and atLEAF values in different environments regardless of crop species. Therefore, the atLEAF Chl meter can be used as an inexpensive alternative to the SPAD-502 meter.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.018 · 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