Composite modeling of leaf shape across shoots discriminates <i>Vitis</i> species better than individual leaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Premise of study Leaf morphology is dynamic, continuously deforming during leaf expansion and among leaves within a shoot. We measured leaf morphology from over 200 vines over four years, and modeled changes in leaf shape along the shoot to determine if a composite “shape of shapes” can better capture variation and predict species identity compared to individual leaves. Methods Using homologous universal landmarks found in grapevine leaves, we modeled various morphological features as a polynomial function of leaf node. The resulting functions are used to reconstruct modeled leaf shapes across shoots, generating composite leaves that comprehensively capture the spectrum of possible leaf morphologies. Results We found that composite leaves are better predictors of species identity than individual leaves from the same plant. We were able to use composite leaves to predict species identity of previously unassigned vines, which were verified with genotyping. Discussion Observations of individual leaf shape fail to capture the true diversity between species. Composite leaf shape—an assemblage of modeled leaf snapshots across the shoot—is a better representation of the dynamic and essential shapes of leaves, as well as serving as a better predictor of species identity than individual leaves.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".