MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767976453 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0167

Herb-chronology as a tool for determining the age of perennial forbs in tropical climates

2017· article· en· W2767976453 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mickel Hiebert-Giesbrecht, Candelaria Yuseth Novelo-Rodríguez, Gabriel Dzib, Luz Calvo-Irabién, Georg von Arx, Luis M. Peña-Rodrı́guez

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsPerennial plantBiologyHerbaceous plantForbHerbChronologyTemperate climateEcologyTropicsBotanyMedicinal herbs

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age in wild plant populations is one of the most elusive developmental parameters in plant biology. Several approaches take advantage of a plant’s morphological traits to determine developmental stages or plant age. Annual growth rings forming in woody tissues of perennial plants are one of the traits that have been widely used to determine the age of trees (dendrochronology) and, more recently, herbaceous perennials (herb-chronology). In temperate, alpine, and arctic climates, it has been reported that seasonal variations in climate lead to the formation of annual growth rings in herbaceous perennial forbs; however, to date, no similar studies have been carried out on plants from tropical regions. We have investigated the applicability of herb-chronology on the tropical plant Pentalinon andrieuxii (Müll. Arg.) B.F. Hansen & Wunderlin, a native vine of the Yucatan peninsula. Our results show that herb-chronology is a potentially useful tool in determining the age of plants growing in tropical climates.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207