MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029823174 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2015-0008

Root system development and architecture in various genotypes of the Solanaceae family

2015· article· en· W2029823174 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valérie Serra, Loïc Pagès

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgropolis Fondation
KeywordsBiologyMeristemElongationRoot systemSolanaceaeBotanyShootPlant morphologyRoot (linguistics)HorticultureGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an extensive, dynamic, and quantitative study of the root system architecture of Solanaceae based on 29 genotypes from three important groups (aubergines, capsicums, and tomatoes). Quantitative traits were essentially obtained from measurements made on high resolution images of different plant parts at several stages. The developmental schema was common to all genotypes. Several traits showed significant genetic variations: root apical diameter (reflecting meristem size), interbranch distances, slopes of the regression lines of elongation rate versus apical diameter, and ratios of diameters of laterals to mother roots. On all genotypes, the initial root system was complemented by a strong adventitious system emerging near the plant collar, made up of a set of fast growing roots with large apical diameters. Correlations between traits were evidenced within the root systems on one hand (e.g., interbranch distance and diameter ratio of laterals to their mother) and between shoot and root on the other hand (e.g., leaf area growth rate and root elongation rate). They revealed both trade-offs in developmental processes and coordination between plant parts. Beyond these results, we demonstrated the importance of characterizing phenotypes through multiple criteria, considering the whole plant and including late stages.

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 score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant nutrient uptake and metabolismFrench-language works237,207