MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214581955 · doi:10.19182/bft2022.351.a36386

Casuarina species in Algeria: reviewing their identity, distribution and symbiotic status

2022· article· en· W4214581955 on OpenAlexaff
Kathia Belaid, Luke J. Potgieter, Saïd Amrani, M. Zizi, Hassen Gherbi

Bibliographic record

VenueBOIS & FORETS DES TROPIQUES · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasuarinaBiologyFrankiaCasuarina equisetifoliaBotanyGenusTemperate climateSymbiosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since their introduction at the beginning of the 19th century, Casuarina species have become important components of the Algerian landscape, yet the numbers of species present in Algeria and their identity, distribution, and symbiotic status are still not well understood. A survey conducted on 2,304 trees in 96 Casuarina stands across Algeria indicates that they are represented exclusively by five species: Casuarina cristata Miq., C. cunninghamiana Miq., C. equisetifolia L., C. glauca Sieber ex Spreng. and C. junghuhniana Miq. Two species, C. cunninghamiana and C. glauca, were the most common – the former occurring more often in the relatively humid and temperate areas of the country while the latter is most frequent in the drier and warmer areas. Production of seedlings of C. cunninghamiana and C. glauca in 12 nurseries resulted in low rates of spontaneous mycorrhizal infection frequency and nodulation, suggesting that inoculation of seedlings with selected mycorrhizal fungi and/or Frankia strains in the nursery would be necessary to improve their establishment in the field. This study is the first survey of the geographical distribution of Casuarina species in Algeria and should lead to more efficient utilization of this widely used tree genus in Algeria.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBOIS & FORETS DES TROPIQUESSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207