MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W597915078

Оценка засухоустойчивости древесных насаждений в Среднем Прихоперье

2012· article· ru· W597915078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Кузьмичёв Алексей Михайлович, Овчаренко Алевтина Анатольевна

Bibliographic record

VenueИзвестия Самарского научного центра Российской академии наук · 2012
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillowWoody plantSalicaceaeCrown (dentistry)BalsamBotanyMapleForestryBiologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assessment of stability of 28 types of woody plants to high temperatures and a drought in points by method of visual assessment of broken leaves developed by authors is given. Groups of views with various extent of damages are allocated. The aboriginal species of common oak, willow, poplar and arboreal introducents of the Canadian spruce, Colorado spruce, Douglas spruce, Scotch pine, lombardy poplar turned out to be stable to drought and high temperatures. A significant differentiation of leaves crown damage was found with North American species of red ash and ash-leaved maple introduced to culture. The maximum pathologies from heat and drought were found with drooping birch, balsam poplar, grey willow, common elm, horse-chestnut, Norway maple, Tatar maple. The coniferous trees, oak, separate species of poplars and willows are prospective for growing in the Middle Prikhoperye region. In anthropogenic environment the effect of high temperatures and drought on woody plants is increasing. The woody plants of different species were greatly suffered on dacha plots near the town junkyard, in the conditions of the town – in the streets with heavy traffic.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueИзвестия Самарского научного центра Российской академии наукSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207