MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136933815 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1200572

Inside the root microbiome: Bacterial root endophytes and plant growth promotion

2013· review· en· W2136933815 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsBiologyEndophyteAbiotic componentMicrobiomePlant growthBotanyPlant communityEcologySpecies richnessPlant rootHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial root endophytes reside in a vast number of plant species as part of their root microbiome, with some being shown to positively influence plant growth. Endophyte community structure (species diversity: richness and relative abundances) within the plant is dynamic and is influenced by abiotic and biotic factors such as soil conditions, biogeography, plant species, microbe-microbe interactions and plant-microbe interactions, both at local and larger scales. Plant-growth-promoting bacterial endophytes (PGPBEs) have been identified, but the predictive success at positively influencing plant growth in field conditions has been limited. Concurrent to the development of modern molecular techniques, the goal of predicting an organism's ability to promote plant growth can perhaps be realized by more thorough examination of endophyte community dynamics. This paper reviews the drivers of endophyte community structure relating to plant growth promotion, the mechanisms of plant growth promotion, and the current and future use of molecular techniques to study these communities.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.220 · 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