Comparing Results from 2-D and 3-D Phenotyping Systems for Soybean Root System Architecture: A ‘Comparison of Apples and Oranges’?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typically, root system architecture (RSA) is not visible, and realistically, high-throughput methods for RSA trait phenotyping should capture key features of developing root systems in solid substrates in 3D. In a published 2-D study using thin rhizoboxes, vermiculite as a growing medium, and photography for imaging, triplicates of 137 soybean cultivars were phenotyped for their RSA. In the transition to 3-D work using X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanning and mineral soil, two research questions are addressed: (1) how different is the soybean RSA characterization between the two phenotyping systems; and (2) is a direct comparison of the results reliable? Prior to a full-scale study in 3D, we grew, in pots filled with sand, triplicates of the Casino and OAC Woodstock cultivars that had shown the most contrasting RSAs in the 2-D study, and CT scanned them at the V1 vegetative stage of development of the shoots. Differences between soybean cultivars in RSA traits, such as total root length and fractal dimension (FD), observed in 2D, can change in 3D. In particular, in 2D, the mean FD values are 1.48 ± 0.16 (OAC Woodstock) vs. 1.31 ± 0.16 (Casino), whereas in 3D, they are 1.52 ± 0.14 (OAC Woodstock) vs. 1.24 ± 0.13 (Casino), indicating variations in RSA complexity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".