MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Control of plant development by limiting factors: A nutritional perspective

2001· article· en· W2031363220 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon I. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiologia Plantarum · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColeoptileBiologyLimitingAuxinPhototropismGerminationShootHypocotylNutrientFluctuating asymmetryBotanyBiochemistryEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is postulated that limiting nutritional factors play a major role in the regulation of some aspects of plant development, and can provide an alternative to mechanisms based on the concept of hormonal control. This hypothesis is consistent with experimental evidence of the role of water as a limiting factor in (1) seed maturation and viviparous germination, (2) the elongation and phototropism of hypocotyls and coleoptiles, (3) the NO3--induced germination of dormant seeds, and (4) the release of buds from correlative inhibition. Studies on the influence of nutrition on morphogenesis have shown that the relative amounts of nitrogen and carbohydrate can determine the path of bud development as a shoot or rhizome. There is also evidence that either NO3- or sugar can limit lateral root initiation, and it is postulated that they may influence this process by a combination of osmotic and nutritional effects. The close correlation between environmentally induced developmental responses and the associated changes in the water or nutritional status of the responsive tissues, together with increasing evidence of the role of water and nutrients as transmitted signals and as regulators of gene expression, are in good agreement with their postulated role as limiting factors in the regulation of plant development.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiologia PlantarumSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207