MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2068952954 · doi:10.1139/x05-195

Micropropagation with a novel pattern of adventitious rooting in Formosan sweetgum

2005· article· en· W2068952954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaroslav Ďurkovič, Viliam Pichler, Alexander Lux

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
KeywordsPetiole (insect anatomy)BiologyAxillary budShootBotanyLiquidambar styracifluaExplant cultureAuxinMicropropagationPalmIn vitroGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultures of the Formosan sweetgum (Liquidambar formosana Hance) were established from axillary buds of intact plants and from petiole segments of in vitro grown leaves. Petiole segments were generally slower than axillary buds to form multiple shoot cultures. Thidiazuron in combination with 6-benzylaminopurine produced on average up to 9.4 shoots per explant. Shoot elongation was significantly affected by the concentration of 6-benzylaminopurine, regardless of auxin addition to the medium. Adventitious rooting occurred up to 90%. An unexpected pattern of adventitious rhizogenesis was observed from the aerial parts of microshoots not in contact with the rooting medium, including leaf blades and petiole axils. In vitro adventitious root formation from the leaf blade was associated with parenchyma cells surrounding the main vein. The regenerated plants established ex vitro did not show any detectable morphological variation and no aerial roots were formed.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant tissue culture and regeneration→French-language works237,207→