MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019144677 · doi:10.1139/x05-274

Influence du charbon actif sur la croissance primaire des plantules de pin gris

2006· article· en· W2019144677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Krassimir D. Naydenov, Francine Tremblay, Yves Bergeron, Venceslas Goudiaby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharcoalGerminationSeedlingPlantletRadicleActivated charcoalBotanyHorticultureSubstrate (aquarium)BiologyChemistryAdsorptionEcologyIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the boreal forest, the beneficial effect of wildfire on germination substrates has often been linked to the adsorption by charcoal of phenolic compounds detrimental for seedling germination and growth. Our goal was to show that active charcoal has direct positive effects on germination and early growth of jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) plantlets, a species well adapted to fire. Four concentrations of active charcoal (0%, 50%, 100%, and 150% seed mass) along with two temperatures (26–27 °C and 18–20 °C) were tested in vitro, in Petri dishes, under constant moisture conditions. Results showed that adding active charcoal to the substrate had no significant effect on jack pine seed germination but inhibited plantlet growth at concentrations over 100%. Significant growth increase was observed only with 50% charcoal at the highest temperature (26–27 °C). Deformities were noted at the apex of radicles, particularly with low temperatures and high levels of active charcoal in the substrate.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207