MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020696614 · doi:10.4141/p01-150

Observations on water distribution in soybean seed during hydration processes using nuclear magnetic resonance imaging

2002· article· en· W2020696614 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. N. Pietrzak, Judith Fregeau-reid, Brock Chatson, B. D. Blackwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImbibitionGerminationCotyledonPrecipitationGlycineNuclear magnetic resonanceBotanyChemistryAgronomyBiologyPhysicsBiochemistryAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water in seeds plays an important role not only in physiological but also in chemical processes. In addition to the requirements of water for germination, seeds of legumes used for human consumption require hydration to prepare them for cooking. The site of water entry, however, and its movement during imbibition in legumes and particularly in soybean is still not clear. One of the best and most precise methods of tracing water movement in plant tissue is nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging. In our study, we applied NMR imaging to reveal the water distribution in soybean seeds during the first 24 h of hydration. It has been found that hydration during this period is a multistage process. Water enters the seed through the micropyle and hilum and the concentration of water there is very high during the entire imbibition process. Inside the seed, water first fills the voids between cotyledons, and between the cotyledons and the seed coat. Water then enters the embryonic axis, and from it, is distributed into cotyledons. The highest water concentration after 24 h of imbibition was observed in the embryonic axis. The external part of the cotyledons was hydrated at a slower rate than the internal tissue. Key words: Soybean, Glycine max L., nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, water imbibition, water distribution

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 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

Citations58
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207