MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983846197 · doi:10.1139/x02-155

Germination of pretreated Scots pine seeds after long-term storage

2003· article· en· W1983846197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anu Hilli, Eila Tillman-Sutela, Anneli Kauppi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationScots pineHorticultureOrchardSeed orchardBiologyBotanyAgronomyPinus <genus>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improvement of seed quality by pretreatments is indispensable in current mechanized plant production. Pretreated seeds are usually sown immediately, but in some cases they also have to be stored. The aim of our work was to study the changes in germination indices of pretreated Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seeds and the impact of the incubation temperature on germination after long-term storage. Pretreated and nontreated Scots pine seeds of three forest stands and a seed orchard were stored for about 10 years at the temperatures of 2°C and –18°C. The changes in germination indices were studied using germination tests and radiography. The germination indices of both pretreated and nontreated seeds were impaired during long-term storage. In general the changes were greater in cold than in frozen storage. Decline of the germination indices was more obvious in pretreated seed orchard than in forest stand seeds. The germination indices of forest stand seeds, whether pretreated or not, was preserved equally well in cold storage, while in orchard seeds germination indices prevailed better in nontreated seed batches. Forest stand seeds incubated at 10°C maintained their germination indices better than seeds incubated at 5°C, while in orchard seeds the effect was not as obvious.

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 score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207