MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976418375 · doi:10.1139/b11-075

Agronomic, breeding, and biotechnological approaches to parasitic plant management through manipulation of germination stimulant levels in agricultural soils

2011· article· en· W1976418375 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGerminationParasitic plantHost (biology)AgricultureWeedAgronomyBotanyShootOrobancheEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of plant species have adapted to parasitize other plants, and some parasitic species pose severe constraints to major crops. The role of strigolactones and other metabolites present in host root exudates as germination stimulants for weedy root parasitic weed seeds has been known for the last 40 years. Recently, the ecological and developmental roles of strigolactones have been clarified by the discovery that they are a new class of plant hormone that controls shoot branching and serve as host recognition signals for mycorrhizal fungi. Parasitic plants also recognize these chemicals and use them to coordinate their life cycle with that of their host. Here we review agronomic practices that use parasitic germination stimulant production as a target for manipulation to control parasitic weeds.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.093 · 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