MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021925555 · doi:10.1139/b09-077

Differences in cellular structure regulate stem elongation of alpine and prairie ecotypes of<i>Stellaria longipes</i>grown under two contrasting temperature regimes

2009· article· en· W2021925555 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dang Thi Thu Thuy, Edward C. Yeung, C. C. Chinnappa

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcotypeBiologyElongationBotanyphotoperiodismCell formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to explore differences in the structural features of stem elongation in alpine and prairie ecotypes of Stellaria longipes Goldie in response to two contrasting temperature regimes. The two ecotypes were grown under warmer, 28 °C (day) – 22 °C (night), and cooler, 10 °C (day) – 4 °C (night) temperatures, and under the same light irradiance (∼120 µmol·m–2·s–1) and photoperiod (16 h). Temperature exerts a significant effect on the stem elongation of alpine and prairie ecotypes of S. longipes. Significant retardation of growth occurred in plants grown in cooler temperatures (10 °C (day) – 4 °C (night)), while growth was profoundly enhanced when plants were grown under warmer conditions (28 °C (day) – 22 °C (night)). The ecotypes exhibited differential responses to temperature (owing to differences in their cellular structure), particularly in cell length, the timing of cell wall thickening, the deposition of phenolic compounds, and the changes in cortical microtubule orientation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207