MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158143768 · doi:10.1093/treephys/tpp062

Magnetic resonance microimaging indicates water diffusion correlates with dormancy induction in cultured hybrid poplar (Populus spp.) buds

2009· article· en· W2158143768 on OpenAlexafffund
Lee Kalcsits, Edward J. Kendall, Salim N. Silim, Karen Tanino

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsJaneway Children's Health and Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanMemorial University of NewfoundlandAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersCollege of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan
KeywordsDormancyBiologyBotanyDiffusionAxillary budphotoperiodismHorticultureGerminationTissue cultureIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water content and mobility, which are factors known to be associated with dormancy induction in woody plants on a tissue level, were measured using non-destructive magnetic resonance microimaging (MRMI). Two cultured poplar clones ('Okanese' - temperature-insensitive dormancy and 'Walker' - temperature-sensitive dormancy) were subjected to dormancy differentiating temperature regimes, 18.5/3.5 degrees C and 18.5/13.5 degrees C (day/night), under a short photoperiod. Apparent diffusion coefficient, an indicator of water mobility, correlated with dormancy development in the axillary bud and vascular bud trace regions. In contrast, T(1) relaxation time, an indicator of static biophysical water properties, did not correlate significantly with dormancy in the regions that were examined. Although MRMI studies using T(1) relaxation measurements have dominated the phytological field, our work indicates that water mobility is an important factor in studies examining water changes during dormancy induction in the critical tissues of woody plants.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207