MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000400497 · doi:10.1139/b01-137

Red/far-red light mediated stem elongation and anthocyanin accumulation in <i>Stellaria longipes</i>: differential response of alpine and prairie ecotypes

2002· article· en· W2000400497 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Suneetha Alokam, C. C. Chinnappa, David M. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcotypeAnthocyaninBiologyBotanyElongationStellaria mediaWeed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the stem elongation response and anthocyanin accumulation between alpine and prairie plants of Stellaria longipes Goldie under different red/far-red light ratios (R/FR) of 0.7 and 1.9 while all other environmental conditions were uniform. Both ecotypes responded to light quality. The prairie ecotype, considered to be the shade avoider, showed greater stem elongation in response to low R/FR (0.7) than under high R/FR (1.9) as compared with the alpine ecotype. The levels of anthocyanin in prairie plants, as compared with alpine plants, were significantly higher under high R/FR. Under low R/FR, both showed almost the same levels of anthocyanin. Also, the two ecotypes upon etiolation showed differences in the sites of anthocyanin accumulation under different R/FR. The results of the present study show that the extent of the stem elongation response and anthocyanin accumulation in the two ecotypes of S. longipes is likely a result of their origins in two contrasting habitats.Key words: Stellaria, plasticity, anthocyanin, R/FR, stem elongation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207