Estimation Leaf Area by Composite Leaves of Canavalia rosea Seedlings Through Linear Dimensions From Last Leaflet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to propose models of equations from measurements of the linear dimensions of the last leaflet for the estimation of the leaf area of the composite leaves of Canavalia rosea. For this purpose, 441 composite leaves of 198 seedlings were used, 45 days after sowing, produced in nursery and belonging to the Federal University of Espírito Santo, Campus São Mateus, located in the municipality of São Mateus, North of the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. The length (L) along the main midrib and the maximum leaf width (W) of the last leaflet of each composite leaf, as well as the leaf area of all leaflets, were measured. Subsequently, it was determined the product of the multiplication of the length with the width (LW) and leaf area observed (OLA) from the sum of leaf area of leaflets in front of these measures were adjusted linear and non-linear equations of linear first degree, quadratic and power models, where, OLA was used as a dependent variable in function of L, W and LW as independent variable. Based on the models tested, we obtained equations for the estimated leaf area (ELA). The mean values of ELA and OLA were compared by Student's t test 5% probability. The mean absolute error (MAE), the root mean square error (RMSE) and the Willmott d index, were determined as criteria for validation. The best adjusted equation was chosen through the non-significant values in the comparison of the means of ELA and OLA, values of MAE and RMSE closer to zero, value of the index d near the unitary and higher values of R2. Thus, the leaf area of the composite leaf of C. rosea seedlings can be estimated by the power model represented by equation ELA = 2.2951 (LW)0.9474 quickly, easily and non-destructively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".