MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030109375 · doi:10.1139/w05-094

Growth of canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) in the presence of plant growth-promoting bacteria and either copper or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

2005· article· en· W2030109375 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Malcolm L. Reed, Bernard R. Glick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrassicaCanolaPhytoremediationBacteriaCreosoteShootPseudomonasCopperChemistryBotanyPolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonBiologyHorticultureSoil waterEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth of canola (Brassica napus) seeds treated with plant growth-promoting bacteria in copper-contaminated and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-contaminated soils was monitored. Pseudomonas asplenii AC, isolated from PAH-contaminated soil, was transformed to express a bacterial gene encoding 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase, and both native and transformed bacteria were tested for growth promotion. Inoculation of seeds, grown in the presence of copper or creosote, with either native or transformed P. asplenii AC significantly increased root and shoot biomass. Native and transformed P. asplenii AC and transformed P. asplenii AC encapsulated in alginate were equally effective at promoting plant growth in copper-contaminated soils. In creosote-contaminated soils the native bacterium was the least effective, and the transformed encapsulated bacterium was the most effective in growth promotion.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations194
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityFrench-language works237,207