MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1826991006 · doi:10.1300/j301v01n03_02

In Vitro Culture of Lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.)

2001· article· en· W1826991006 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samir C. Debnath, K. B. McRae

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Fruits Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVacciniumIn vitroBiologyBotanyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shoots of three lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) cultivars, ‘Regal’, ‘Splendor’, and ‘Erntedank’ and two clones from natural stands in Newfoundland were initiated in vitro from shoot tip and nodal explants on modified Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium containing the plant growth regulators N6-[2-isopentenyl]adenine (2iP) (12.3 μM) or zeatin (5.7 μM). Zeatin was more effective than 2iP, and induced proliferation of 2 to 3 times as many shoots in ‘Regal’ as 2iP. Out of four media tested for shoot proliferation, modified MS medium was found more effective than the Woody Plant Medium for shoot multiplication. With all three cultivars, a reasonable balance in terms of shoot multiplication rate and desirable growth characteristics was attained in a new medium. Nodal explants of the two clones cultured on the modified MS medium with 12.3 μM 2iP produced 4 to 6 healthy axillary shoots per explant in clone 1 and 2 to 4 shoots in clone 2. Shoots rooted well ex vitro directly on a 2 peat: 1 perlite (v/v) medium after dipping in 39.4 mM indole-3-butyric acid. The new protocol proposed from this study is expected to be adapted for propagating a wide range of lingonberry germplasm.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations77
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Fruits ReviewSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207