MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149828194 · doi:10.17504/protocols.io.p3tdqnn

Measuring specific leaf area and water content v1

2018· preprint· en· W3149828194 on OpenAlexaffabout
Étienne Laliberté

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecific leaf areaWater contentHorticultureDry matterMeasure (data warehouse)Environmental scienceObservatoryBiologyBotanyMathematicsPhotosynthesisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we describe the standardised protocol used by the Canadian Airborne Biodiversity Observatory (CABO) to measure leaf water content and specific leaf area, using the WinFOLIA™ software (Régent Instruments). These leaf area and water measurements are done on a subset of leaves from the same bulk leaf sample used to measure leaf spectral reflectance and transmittance. Briefly, after removing their petioles, fresh leaves are weighed, rehydrated for 6 h, scanned for total leaf area and weighed again; they are then oven-dried at 65 ºC for 72 h, and weighed one last time. This allows us to measure leaf dry matter content and its complement, leaf water content, as well as leaf relative water content. Leaf area measurements are used to estimate specific leaf area, a key functional trait central to the leaf economics spectrum. Specific leaf area allows us to estimate equivalent water thickness and to convert concentrations of foliar biochemical constitutents from a leaf mass to a leaf area basis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.013

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.044 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLeaf Properties and Growth MeasurementFrench-language works237,207