MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757956961 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-12923-1

A penalty on photosynthetic growth in fluctuating light

2017· article· en· W2757956961 on OpenAlexafffund
Percival J. Graham, Brian Nguyen, Thomas Burdyny, David Sinton

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPhotosynthesisChlamydomonas reinhardtiiRuBisCODuty cycleBiological systemEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsBiologyBiophysicsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fluctuating light is the norm for photosynthetic organisms, with a wide range of frequencies (0.00001 to 10 Hz) owing to diurnal cycles, cloud cover, canopy shifting and mixing; with broad implications for climate change, agriculture and bioproduct production. Photosynthetic growth in fluctuating light is generally considered to improve with increasing fluctuation frequency. Here we demonstrate that the regulation of photosynthesis imposes a penalty on growth in fluctuating light for frequencies in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 Hz (organisms studied:Synechococcus elongatusandChlamydomonas reinhardtii). We provide a comprehensive sweep of frequencies and duty cycles. In addition, we develop a 2ndorder model that identifies the source of the penalty to be the regulation of the Calvin cycle – present at all frequencies but compensated at high frequencies by slow kinetics of RuBisCO.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations72
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207