MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121426221 · doi:10.1139/z01-132

Production de composés indoliques rhizogènes par le ver de terre <i>Lumbricus terrestris</i>

2001· article· en· W2121426221 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdellatif El Harti, Mohamed Saghi, G. Teller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLumbricus terrestrisAcetic acidColumn chromatographyThin-layer chromatographyGas chromatographyChromatographyBiochemistryChemistryEarthwormEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro application of total gross extract of earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris) in diverse dilutions stimulates rhizogenesis in young bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris). The observed effect is similar to that of indol acetic acid, a well-known growth enhancer in plants, used here as a control in various concentrations. Fragmentation of worm extract by column chromatography results in three groups of fractions. Only the polar group of fractions has a significant rhizogenous effect, which is, however, inferior to that observed in the presence of total gross extract of worms or of indol acetic acid. Gross extract analyses using thin layer chromatography, with appropriate chromatography systems and reagents, revealed that indol acetic acid is not present, but is probably replaced by other indol-derived substances that have a neutral to basic chromatographic behaviour. These presumed indol-derived substances are identified as methyl-tryptophane, serotonin, and hydroxy-indol acetic acid. Analyses using mass spectrometry combined with gas chromatography, following fragmentation and purification of the group of rhyzogenous fractions, have revealed the presence of hydroxy-indol carboxylic acid, which seems to take the form of several isomeres.[Journal translation]

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207