MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094013719 · doi:10.2298/abs1002373s

Gibberellin influence on the morphogenesis of the moss Bryum argenteum Hedw. in in vitro conditions

2010· article· en· W2094013719 on OpenAlexaff
Aneta Sabovljević, Marko Sabovljević, D. Grubišić

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Biological Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGibberellinMossProtonemaBotanyShootBiologyAuxinMorphogenesisGametophyteGibberellic acidAbscisic acidGerminationBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The moss Bryum argenteum Hedw. was treated with gibberellins as well as some inhibitors of gibberellin biosynthesis in order to investigate their influence on B. argenteum morphogenesis. Generally, gibberellins have not been chemically identified in bryophytes, while other groups of classical phytohormones (auxins, cytokinins, abscisic acid and ethylene) have been chemically identified in these plants. The in vitro culture of the moss Bryum argenteum was established from sterilized spores. The apical shoots of untreated gametophytes grown in vitro were used to investigate the influence of different substances on secondary protonema and on the growth and multiplication of the gametophytes. B. argenteum reacts differently to the growth regulators applied. Both gibberellins applied in vitro (GA3 and GA7) have a positive effect on B. argenteum morphogenesis. Shoot multiplication was negatively affected by three tested growth retardants (ancymidol, BX-112 and chlorocholine chloride), while these substances did not have such strong effects on the moss protonema 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 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Biological SciencesSame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207