MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168366017 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erl244

Patterns and kinetics of water uptake by soybean seeds

2006· article· en· W2168366017 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris J. Meyer, Ernst Steudle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsImbibitionCoatOsmometerGerminationViral tegumentBotanyHorticultureChemistryBiologyAgronomyMaterials scienceChromatographyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] plants produce some seeds (called stone or impermeable seeds) that do not take up water for long periods of time. The present investigation confirmed that the stone seed trait is a feature of the seed coat: isolated embryos from both stone and permeable seeds took up water equally quickly. A whole, permeable seed typically imbibed water initially through its dorsal side, forming wrinkles in the seed coat and delivering water to the underlying cotyledons. Later, some lateral movement of water through the coat occurred, presumably through the air spaces of the osteosclereid layer. Imbibition by seeds was a two-phase process, the first dominated by hydration of the seed coat and the second by hydration of the cotyledons, which was rate-limited by the coat. When hydrated, coats of stone seeds were permeable to water but their hydraulic conductivity, as measured with a pressure probe, was smaller than that of coats from permeable seeds by a factor of five. Hydrated coats of both permeable and stone seeds showed weak osmometer properties.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
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

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 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

Citations87
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207