MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008720504 · doi:10.1080/10520290500166282

Preparation of soybean seed samples for FT-IR microspectroscopy

2005· article· en· W2008720504 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Shea Miller, LN Pietrzak, Wetzel Dl

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnic & Histochemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersBrookhaven National LaboratoryCanadian Light Source
KeywordsImbibitionMicrotomeSample preparationInfraredChemistryMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyGerminationMineralogyOpticsBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical preparation of seed samples for infrared (IR) microspectroscopy involves imbibition of the seed for varying time periods followed by cryosectioning. Imbibition, however, may initiate germination even at 4 degrees C with associated changes in the chemistry of the sample. We have found that it is possible to section seeds that are sufficiently hard, such as soybeans, on a standard laboratory microtome without imbibition. The use of dry sectioning of unimbibed seeds is reported here, as well as a comparison of different mounting media and modes of analysis. Glycerol, Tissue-Tek, and ethanol were used as mounting media, and the quality of the resulting spectra was assessed. Ethanol was the preferred mountant, because it dried quickly with no residue and thus did not interfere with the spectrum of interest. Analysis in transmission mode using barium fluoride windows to hold the samples was compared with transmission-reflection analysis with sections mounted on special infrared-reflecting slides. The two modes of analysis performed well in different regions of the spectrum. The mode of analysis (transmission vs. transmission-reflection) should be based on the components of greatest interest in the sample.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotechnic & HistochemistrySame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207