MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936257197 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n5p461

Leaf Area Estimation of Garden Boldo From Linear Dimensions

2019· article· en· W2936257197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Maria Alves de Souza Ribeiro, Daniel Alves Mundim, Daisy Cristina Martins Mendonça, Karina Tiemi Hassuda dos Santos, Jéssica Sayuri Hassuda Santos, Vinícius de Souza Oliveira, Glêyce Pereira Santos, Luã Víthor Chíxaro Almeida Falcão Rosa, Weslley do Rosário Santana, Omar Schmildt, Edney Leandro da Vitória, Edílson Romais Schmildt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Espírito SantoConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMathematicsLinear regressionCoefficient of determinationStatisticsExponential functionLeaf bladeRegression analysisBotanyMathematical analysisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to determine a mathematical equation using linear measures that allows estimating a leaf area of the specie Plectranthus barbatus Andrews, a plant with medicinal properties popularly known as garden boldo. For this was performed a direct measurement of the leaf blade considering the length (L) along the midrib and the maximum width (W) perpendicular to the midrib of 500 leaves of different specimens and the observed foliar area (OLA), which were obtained by digitized images. A regression study with linear, quadratic, potential and exponential models was performed using a random sample of 400 from the evaluated leaves using OLA as a function of L, W or LW and then obtaining the estimated leaf area (ELA) of each model. From the remaining 100 leaves a validation of the tested models was performed using ELA as a function of OLA in a simple linear regression. From the residues between ELA and OLA the root-square-mean error and Willmot index (d) was obtained and the normality was verified. The parameters used for validation were: statistically linear and angular coefficient equal to zero and one respectively; coefficient of determination closest to the unit; RQME closer to zero; d index closest to the unit; normal distribution of residues. The equation that best represents the estimated leaf area of the garden boldo is ELA = 0.1389 + 0.6779 (LW).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicLeaf Properties and Growth MeasurementFrench-language works237,207