MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964332999 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s7-o22

Greenhouse and field evaluation of transgenic poplars with modified gibberellin metabolism and signaling genes

2011· article· en· W1964332999 on OpenAlexaff
Venkatesh Viswanath, Cathleen Ma, Elizabeth Etherington, Palitha Dharmawardhana, David Pearce, Stewart B. Rood, Victor Busov, Steven H. Strauss

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGibberellinGreenhouseTransgeneGeneBiomass (ecology)Metabolic pathwayGenetically modified cropsBiotechnologyBiologyComputational biologyBotanyGeneticsAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there have been many observations of transgenes leading to improved plant growth in greenhouse experiments, there is a paucity of data that have been validated by multiple greenhouse experiments or field studies.Genes that encode regulators of gibberellin metabolic pathways were among the first reported to improve biomass growth in trees, and thus were the logical focus of this study.Poplars were transformed with eight different transgenic constructs designed to modify gibberellin biosynthesis and/or signaling.Dramatic improvements in growth rate were observed for several constructs under greenhouse conditions.However, these were often not seen in repeated greenhouse studies, and were statistically unconfirmed for most constructs in the field.Our results underline the importance of multiple greenhouse and field trials during studies with transgenes that modify hormonal homeostasis.

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)0.001
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207