MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971887789 · doi:10.1300/j301v03n03_16

<i>In Vitro</i>Culture of Lowbush Blueberry (<i>Vaccinium angustifolium</i>Ait.)

2004· article· en· W1971887789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samir C. Debnath

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall Fruits Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBerry genetics and cultivation research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVacciniumEricaceaeBiologyBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Cultures of three lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) clones collected from natural stands in Newfoundland were established in vitro on a modified cranberry (V. macrocarpon Ait.) tissue culture medium containing zeatin (5 μM) or N6-[2-isopentenyl]adenine (2iP) (10 μM). Shoot proliferation with respect to shoot number per explant differed among clones at various concentrations of zeatin over two culture periods. Best total shoot proliferation was obtained when basal nodal segments were cultured in the medium supplemented with 2-4 μM zeatin. In another experiment, nodal explants were more productive than shoot tips. Shoots growing for more than 12 weeks on media that contained more than 4 μM zeatin occasionally produced adventitious shoot masses, which appeared to arise from dense calli growing at the base of the shoots in the medium. The lower concentration of sucrose and lower irradiance improved shoot proliferation with respect to vigor compared to the control treatments (30 g L_1 and 30 μmol m∼2 s_1, respectively). In all experiments with subculture, there was an increase in shoot multiplication rate for all clones. A 50-100-fold multiplication rate was obtained every 3 months with the clones.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmall Fruits ReviewSame topicBerry genetics and cultivation researchFrench-language works237,207