MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027933681 · doi:10.1094/cm-2004-0301-05-rv

Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): Prospects for New Inoculants

2004· article· en· W2027933681 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhizobacteriaMicrobial inoculantBiologyBiotechnologyPlant growthAgricultureRhizosphereAgronomyBacteriaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Root colonizing bacteria (rhizobacteria) that exert beneficial effects on plant development via direct or indirect mechanisms have been defined as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Although significant control of plant pathogens or direct enhancement of plant development has been demonstrated by PGPR in the laboratory and in the greenhouse, results in the field have been less consistent. Because of these and other challenges in screening, formulation, and application, PGPR have yet to fulfill their promise and potential as commercial inoculants. Recent progress in our understanding of their diversity, colonization ability, mechanisms of action, formulation, and application should facilitate their development as reliable components in the management of sustainable agricultural systems.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.200 · 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