MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591609003 · doi:10.1562/2006-08-08-ra-999

Rapid Chlorophyll a Fluorescence Transients of Lemna minor Leaves as Indication of Light and Exogenous Electron Carriers Effect on Photosystem II Activity

2007· article· en· W1591609003 on OpenAlexafffund
David Dewez, Philippe Eullaffroy, R. Popović, Philippe Juneau

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemistry and Photobiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotosystem IILemna minorChlorophyll fluorescenceFluorescencePhotochemistryLight-harvesting complexes of green plantsChemistryChlorophyllPhotosystem IChlorophyll aElectron transport chainBotanyBiophysicsPhotosynthesisBiologyPhysicsAquatic plantOpticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By using saturating flash, we investigated the change in the rapid fluorescence rise when Lemna minor leaf was exposed to different light conditions and treated with exogenous electron acceptors (methyl viologen and duroquinone) and electron donor (hydroxylamine). Investigation was carried out by using combined pulse amplitude modulated fluorometer and plant efficiency analyzer system, which were employed simultaneously to provide different light conditions and to induce rapid fluorescence rise respectively. We have shown that when leaf of L. minor was exposed to different conditions of illumination, rapid fluorescence rise was greatly influenced by the electron transport functions beyond quinone A-plastoquinone reduction. This was indicated by the change in both fluorescence yield and appearance time of the different transients. When exogenous electron donor (hydroxylamine) and acceptors (methyl viologen and duroquinone) were applied in in vivo condition, we showed that rapid fluorescence rise represented a reliable indicator of PSII-PSI electron transport state and energy dissipation process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemistry and PhotobiologySame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207