MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412679207 · doi:10.1071/bt24090

Functional traits in arborescent Cactaceae: a guideline for their measurement

2025· article· en· W4412679207 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Walter F. Paredes Cubas, Kyle G. Dexter, Carlos Reynel, R. Toby Pennington, José Luís Marcelo Peña

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Botany · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndependent Electricity System Operator
KeywordsBiologyMycologyPlant sciencePaleobotanyPlant ecologyBotanyLichenEvolutionary biologyGuidelinePlant developmentGeneticsMedicineGenePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need to understand the impacts of global change on ecosystems has driven interest in studying functional traits, which represent morphological, physiological, or phenological adaptations that determine the ecological performance of organisms. Although standardized methods exist for assessing functional traits in woody and herbaceous plants, protocols for arborescent cacti are still scarce. Cactaceae is a tropical American plant family that reaches high abundance in tropical dry ecosystems and encompasses a great diversity of form and size. Cacti perform fundamental ecosystem functions, are on the list of the most endangered plants globally and represent economically-impactful invasive species outside of the Americas. Here, we propose protocols to measure 12 functional traits in cacti, which are grouped into structural (two traits), morphological (seven traits), hydraulic–mechanical (two traits) and biophysical (one trait) categories, so as to complement ecological studies of plants and improve the understanding of their life cycle and the main environmental challenges faced by cacti.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.018

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of BotanySame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207