MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138471680 · doi:10.1139/w09-010

Beneficial role of plant growth promoting bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant responses to heavy metal stress

2009· review· en· W2138471680 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elisa Gamalero, Guido Lingua, Graziella Berta, Bernard R. Glick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytoremediationArbuscular mycorrhizal fungiHeavy metalsPlant growthBiologyEnvironmental pollutionGlomeromycotaEnvironmental stressBiotechnologyEnvironmental scienceBacteriaArbuscular mycorrhizalBotanyContaminationEcologySymbiosisEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental chemistryChemistryHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy metal pollution is a major worldwide environmental concern that has recently motivated researchers to develop a variety of novel approaches towards its cleanup. As an alternative to traditional physical and chemical methods of environmental cleanup, scientists have developed phytoremediation approaches that include the use of plants to remove or render harmless a range of compounds. Both plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) can be used to facilitate the process of phytoremediation and the growth of plants in metal-contaminated soils. This review focuses on the recent literature dealing with the effects of plant growth-promoting bacteria and AM fungi on the response of plants to heavy metal stress and points the way to strategies that may facilitate the practical realization of this technology.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations254
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207