Principles of resilient coding for plant ecophysiologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant ecophysiology is founded on a rich body of physical and chemical theory, but it is challenging to connect theory with data in unambiguous, analytically rigorous, and reproducible ways. Custom scripts written in computer programming languages (coding) enable plant ecophysiologists to model plant processes and fit models to data reproducibly using advanced statistical techniques. Since many ecophysiologists lack formal programming education, we have yet to adopt a unified set of coding principles and standards that could make coding easier to learn, use, and modify. We identify eight principles to help in plant ecophysiologists without much programming experience to write resilient code: 1) standardized nomenclature, 2) consistency in style, 3) increased modularity/extensibility for easier editing and understanding, 4) code scalability for application to large datasets, 5) documented contingencies for code maintenance, 6) documentation to facilitate user understanding; 7) extensive tutorials, and 8) unit testing. We illustrate these principles using a new R package, {photosynthesis}, which provides a set of analytical and simulation tools for plant ecophysiology. Our goal with these principles is to advance scientific discovery in plant ecophysiology by making it easier to use code for simulation and data analysis, reproduce results, and rapidly incorporate new biological understanding and analytical tools.
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 | 0.033 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".