Anatomical Characteristics of Garcinia lucida (Vesque) and Scorodophloeus zenkeri (Harms) Wood and Debarking Response in the South Region Cameroon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to investigate the possible anatomical changes of Garcinia lucida and Scorodophloeus zenkeri after the removal of their bark. Debarking was done on individuals of each species at 1.30 m from the soil. The wound was rectangular in shape with 30 cm side. There was a follow-up every three months for nine months during which the survival and rate of regeneration of the bark were recorded. A block of cube was cut from the regenerated and intact wood of species for microtomy and microscopy activities. On the cross-section of each wood, vessel features like density and diameter were measured before and after wounding. Semi-automatic measurements were made using the SpectrumSee digital image analysis software. In the wood of the two species, it appeared that the density of the vessels before debarking was significantly comparable to the density after debarking, while the diameter of vessels in the regenerated wood was smaller. The cambial area increased slightly in the rainy season for all species. After nine months all the species started the restoration of their conductive zone. G. lucida heals its wound more rapidly than S. zenkeri.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".