MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090291795 · doi:10.1626/pps.5.301

A Histological Evaluation of Adventitious Bud Formation in Cotyledons in<i>Crotalaria juncea</i>L.

2002· article· en· W2090291795 on OpenAlexaff
Hiroyuki Daimon, Hitoshi Ohno, Yoko Akasaka, Masahiro Mii

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Production Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsPlant Biotechnology Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCotyledonBotanyCrotalariaCrotalaria junceaAgronomyGreen manure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Crotalaria juncea L., adventitious buds were formed in cotyledonary expiants cultured on 0.8% agar-solidified 1/2 MS basal medium containing B5 vitamins, 1.0 or 0.5 mg L–1 NAA, 5.0 or 10.0 mg L–1 BA and 3% sucrose. The frequency of adventitious bud formation was 30-45% in all combinations of NAA and BA. In histological observations, prominent mitotic figures were observed in several cells of the subepidermal palisade layers on the adaxial side of the expiants in contact with medium after 3 days of culture. Calli were formed within 6 days of culture. After 10 days of culture, numerous mature tracheary elements were produced at random in the proliferated regions, and cell divisions at the superficial region led to the formation of the meristematic structure. The shoot apex of the seedling produced numerous trichomes from superficial cells, but the adventitious bud formed on the cotyledon produced no trichomes. Initiation of the meristematic region in the expiant could be used as a target site for gene transfer experiments.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Production ScienceSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207