MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768061235 · doi:10.2298/gensr1702529b

Morphological variability of Quercus robur L. leaf in Serbia

2017· article· en· W2768061235 on OpenAlexaff
Branislava Batos, Danijela Miljković, Marko Perović, Saša Orlović

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetika · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja
KeywordsIntraspecific competitionQuercus roburBiologyPopulationGenetic variabilityMultivariate analysis of varianceDiscriminant function analysisAnalysis of varianceMultivariate statisticsBotanyHorticultureZoologyStatisticsMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a study dealing with leaf morphological variability of Quercus robur L. 148 trees were sampled from 5 population across Serbia and 17 morphological traits were assessed. Interpopulation variability was confirmed by the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA). A statistically significant (p <0.05) effect of population was obtained for most of the studied morphological characters. Intrapopulation variability was confirmed by statistically significant tree effects for all of the studied leaf characters (all p < 0.05). The results of the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) confirmed a significant population and tree share in the total phenotypic variability (all p <0.05). By applying the canonical discriminant analysis (CDA), the first discriminant function accounted for 63% of the variability between populations and the second accounted for 20% of the population variability. The leaf area (AREA), specific leaf area (SLA) and surface area to perimeter ratio (ARPE) had the greatest effect on population differentiation (CDA). It is assumed that different environmental conditions affect population differentiation and that high intrapopulation variability is due to intraspecific variability.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetikaSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207