Physiological measurements and root morphology of poplar trees cultivated with different fungal guilds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset encompasses 1) Detailed measurements of root architecture parameters - numerical values for Total length (cm), Area (cm²), Surface area (cm²), Average diameter (mm); Root volume (cm³), Number of tips, forks, and crossings; and 2) The physiological responses of poplar trees under varying light conditions - measurements of Transpiration rate (mmol m⁻² s⁻¹), Net CO₂ assimilation rate (µmol m⁻² s⁻¹), Intercellular CO₂ concentration (µmol mol⁻¹), Intercellular CO₂ partial pressure (Pa), and Stomatal conductance to water vapour (mol m⁻² s⁻¹). Data were generated in a glasshouse experiment under elevated CO₂ (740 µmol mol⁻¹). The Root Architecture data was collected when the trees were six months old. Net Photosynthesis Light Curves were recorded at four time points, starting when the poplar trees were two months old and continuing until they were six months old. The root architecture data were obtained through WinRhizo scanning and software (Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec City, QC, Canada). The physiological measurements were recorded using LI-6800P Portable Photosynthesis System (LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, NE, USA). To construct the light curves, measurements were taken starting from a maximum light intensity of 1500 PPFD (µmol m⁻² s⁻¹) and subsequently decreased to 800, 200 and 50 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹ until no light was applied. In this experiment, micro-propagated poplar clones were cultivated under four different conditions: without fungi (fungal-free plants), with ectomycorrhizal fungi (ectomycorrhizal plants), with saprotrophic fungi (saprotrophic fungal plants), and with both ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi (fungal plants). The purpose of the experiment was to evaluate plant performance under the influence of different fungal guilds and their interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".