An evaluation of the evidence for, and implications of, cytoplasmic nitrate homeostasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A review of literature, reporting values of cytoplasmic/cytosolic [NO 3 – ] in plant cells, identified two major areas of disagreement: (1) disparity in the absolute values within the same system, and (2) constancy versus variability in cytoplasmic/cytosolic [NO 3 – ] with varying [NO 3 – ] o. These differences are related to the techniques used by the different authors. Estimates of cytoplasmic [NO 3 – ] by compartmental analysis and by cell fractionation were consistently higher than the estimates by NO 3 – selective microelectrodes and by techniques based upon in vivo and in vitro nitrate reductase activity (NRA). A model recognizing more than one cytoplasmic ionic pool would satisfactorily reconcile the differences in both aspects, i.e. absolute values and constancy. Compartmental analysis and cell fractionation techniques may measure the amount of NO 3 – in the cytoplasm as a whole (including organelles); by contrast, NO 3 – selective microelectrodes and NRA estimate only the cytosolic NO 3 – and, hence, may result in lower estimates. Thus, variable organellar pool(s) may maintain a constant cytosolic pool as estimated by microelectrodes. However, certain observations remain at odds with the notion of a constant cytosolic [NO 3 – ].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".