MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171152963 · doi:10.1139/b04-015

Regulatory mechanisms during the plant arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus interaction

2004· article· en· W2171152963 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Horst Vierheilig

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFungusBiologySymbiosisArbuscular mycorrhizaArbuscular mycorrhizalColonizationMycorrhizaBotanyBacteriaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abundant data are available on some aspects of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis, for example, plant nutrition, but because of difficulties immanent to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, such as the inability to culture them axenically, the relatively long time it takes to achieve root colonization, and the simultaneous presence of different morphologic stages of the fungus in the root, less information is accumulated on other aspects such as the regulation of mycorrhization. Regulatory processes in the plant – arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus interaction start before root colonization by the fungus and even before a direct physical contact between the host and the fungal symbiont. Some of the signals exchanged are still a matter of debate and will be discussed further on. After the penetration of the root by the fungus, depending on the developmental stage of the arbuscular mycorrhizal association (e.g., early or mature), a range of plant responses is activated. The possible function of several plant responses in the regulation of mycorrhization is discussed.Key words: arbuscular mycorrhiza, Glomales, autoregulation, flavonoid, recognition, root exudates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 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

Citations131
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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