MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W35762843 · doi:10.1111/nph.18347

Testing the ISRD -2 Questionnaire in Portugal

2005· article· en· W35762843 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sílvia M. Mendes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTest (biology)Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Portable gas exchange analysers provide critical data for understanding plant-atmosphere carbon and water fluxes, and for parameterising Earth system models that forecast climate change effects and feedbacks. We characterised temperature measurement errors in the Li-Cor LI-6400XT and LI-6800, and estimated downstream errors in derived quantities, including stomatal conductance (g<sub>sw</sub> ) and leaf intercellular CO<sub>2</sub> concentration (C<sub>i</sub> ). The LI-6400XT exhibited air temperature errors (differences between reported air temperature and air temperature measured near the leaf) up to 7.2°C, leaf temperature errors up to 5.3°C, and relative errors in g<sub>sw</sub> and C<sub>i</sub> that increased as temperatures departed from ambient. This caused errors in leaf-to-air temperature relationships, assimilation-temperature curves and CO<sub>2</sub> response curves. Temperature dependencies of maximum Rubisco carboxylation rate (V<sub>cmax</sub> ) and maximum RuBP regeneration rate (J<sub>max</sub> ) showed errors of 12% and 35%, respectively. These errors are likely to be idiosyncratic and may differ among machines and environmental conditions. The LI-6800 exhibited much smaller errors. Earth system model predictions may be erroneous, as much of their parametrisation data were measured on the LI-6400XT system, depending on the methods used. We make recommendations for minimising errors and correcting data in the LI-6400XT. We also recommend transitioning to the LI-6800 for future data collection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207