MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1927504807 · doi:10.4141/cjps-2015-153

The effects of temperature and scarification on seed germination of three <i>Dalea</i> species

2015· article· en· W1927504807 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M.P. Schellenberg, Bill Biligetu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationScarificationBiologyFabaceaeAgronomyBotanyDormancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schellenberg, M. P. and Biligetu, B. 2015. The effects of temperature and scarification on seed germination of three Dalea species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 1117–1120. Ecological varieties of North American native plants are used for reclamation or rangeland seeding in Canada. The objectives of the study were to determine the optimum temperature for seed germination and to evaluate the effect of seed scarification on germination of ecological varieties of purple prairie clover [Dalea purpureum (Vent) Rydb.], white prairie clover [Dalea candida (Michx.) Willd.], and a wild collection of hairy prairie clover [Dalea villosa (Nutt.) Spreng var. villosa]. Germination was studied in growth chambers with constant temperatures of 5, 10, 20, and 30°C for 28 d using a randomized complete block design (RCBD). An additional germination experiment was conducted at 20°C after seed scarification. Based on days to initiate first germination and final germination, the optimum temperature for germination was 20°C for the three species. Final germination was the highest for purple prairie clover (51%), intermediate for white prairie clover (27%), and lowest for hairy prairie clover (5%). Seed scarification increased final germination by around 20% for all three species.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant Science→Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies→French-language works237,207→