MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963556706 · doi:10.1139/b06-054

High-quality and homogeneous <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> plants from a simple and inexpensive method of hydroponic cultivation

2006· article· en· W1963556706 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mary M. Robison, Matthew P.L. Smid, David J. Wolyn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSeedlingGreenhouseArabidopsis thalianaHorticultureBiologyGerminationSpark plugBotanyAgronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A methodology is presented for the hydroponic cultivation of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. that is simple and inexpensive to construct from easily obtainable and reusable materials. High-quality and uniform plant material, free of algae and disease, are consistently produced through all life-stages. Minor modifications to previous protocols that reduce cost and labour include the use of small food-storage containers with snap-on lids, aluminum foil wrap to cover the containers to occlude light, commercial hydroponic fertilizer as nutrient solution, and clipped 1.5 mL microfuge tubes as plug holders. Seed is germinated on nutrient agar plates, instead of directly on rockwool plugs; after the seedlings have grown to the six-leaf stage, they are removed from the plates and the roots are enclosed within rockwool plugs that have been cut longitudinally. Subsequent seedling growth is very uniform and the elimination of oversowing and subsequent thinning results in a dramatic reduction in seed and seedling wastage.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207