MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020681402 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s7-p140

Gene expression in cultured primordial shoots of adult white spruce (Picea glauca) in somatic embryogenesis responsive and non responsive genotypes

2011· article· en· W2020681402 on OpenAlexaff
Krystyna Klimaszewska, Brian Boyle, Sébastien Caron, Don Stewart, Catherine Overton, John Mackay, Robert G. Rutledge

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatic embryogenesisSomatic cellGenotypeWhite (mutation)ShootGeneBiologyGene expressionBotanyEmbryogenesisMedicineCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Modern forest management relies on extensive breeding and reforestation programs to sustain forest productivity and conservation of natural forests. Plantation forestry, with its increased productivity and improved wood quality, is likely to become an important source of wood products in the future. Vegetative propagation of superior coniferous forest trees through tissue culture has the potential to deliver a stable supply of superior seedlings for forest plantation. To clone adult (mature) conifer trees by means of tissue culture has been a cherished goal for the last several decades. The benefits derived from improving the genetic make-up of planting stock would be significant if such clonal propagation could be achieved at a high efficiency and without growth abnormalities of regenerated plants. Although, somatic embryogenesis (SE) technology has worked well for many conifer species using zygotic embryos as starting material, attempts to achieve the same in adult conifers have failed. The basis of this failure is not exactly understood.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207