Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a plant can be predicted from its ionome (concentration of elements in a living tissue) at a specific growth stage. Diagnoses have yet been based on simple statistical tools by relating a Boolean index to a vector of nutrient concentrations or to unstructured sets of nutrient ratios. We are now aware that compositional data such as nutrient concentrations should be carefully preprocessed before statistical modeling. Projecting concentrations to isometric log-ratios confer a Euclidean space to compositional data, similar to geographic coordinates. By comparing projected nutrient profiles to a geographical map, this perspective paper shows why univariate ranges and ellipsoids are less accurate to assess the nutrient status of a plant from its ionome compared to machine learning models. I propose an imbalance index defined as the Aitchison distance between an imbalanced specimen to the closest balanced point or region in a reference data set. I also propose and raise some limitations of a recommendation system where the ionome of a specimen is translated to its closest point or region where high plant performance is reported. The approach is applied to a data set comprising macro- and oligo-elements measured in blueberry leaves from Québec, Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".