MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486871521

오리엔탈 종간잡종 나리 미숙배주 배양

2009· article· ko· W1486871521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
최은경, 박병모

Bibliographic record

Venue화훼연구 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEcology and Conservation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationInterspecific competitionBiologyBotanyZygoteKinetinHybridHorticultureInterspecific hybridsEmbryoEmbryogenesisTissue culture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interspecific crossing was conducted to obtain hybrid lilly with better quality of adapting to the unfavorable environment using oriental Lilium spp. as a female parent. Average interspecific crossing rate between oriental and asiatic lines by cut-style pollination was as low as 29%. Although the average germination rate of zygotic hybrid embryo between oriental 'Rodolfa' × asiatic 'Toronto' was increased from 76.6% to 78.3%. on 1/4 or 1/6 strength MS medium compared to the control, the rate of zygotic embryos formation between oriental 'Farolito' × asiatic 'Buff Pixie' was significantly enhanced up about 86~90% on 1/2 strength MS medium. Meanwhile, germination rate of interspecific hybrid embryo between oriental 'Snow Cristal' × asiatic 'Royal Trinity' showed up 100%. Germination rate of interspecific hybrids slightly increased by addition of 0.5-1.0 ㎎ㆍL?¹ GA. Germination rate of zygotic embryos between oriental 'Farolito' × asiatic 'Buff Pixie' and oriental 'Belcanto' × L. callosum was highest on the MS medium containing 0.01㎎ㆍL?¹ NAA and 0.1 ㎎ㆍL?¹ kinetin. as 66.6% and 45.2% respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue화훼연구Same topicEcology and Conservation StudiesFrench-language works237,207