MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311909731 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2016.12.20

Influence of Sugar, Ammonium Nitrate and Plant Growth Regulators on in vitro Flowering of Celosia argentea var. cristata

2016· article· en· W2311909731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Krupa-Ma kiewicz Marcelina, Mg osiek Oktawia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFlowering Plant Growth and Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootSugarSucroseBiologyExplant cultureBotanyMurashige and Skoog mediumAmmoniumNitrateIn vitroAmmonium nitrateHorticultureChemistryFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro flowering is considered to be a complex process regulated by a vast of environmental and genetic factors. The present study describes the influence of sugar, ammonium nitrate and plant growth regulators on in vitroflowering from nodal explants of Celosia argentea var. cristata cultured for 6 weeks on basal MS medium under aseptic and light conditions. The addition to MS medium different concentrations of sucrose or ammonium nitrate did not influence on morphogenesis of Celosia plants. Among the plant growth regulators tested, supplementation with 1.0 mg/l KIN induced maximum number of new shoots (2.52). Flowering occurred on 100% of in vitro shoots cultured on modify MS medium supplemented with 16.50 and 8.25 g/l of NH4NO3 after 40 days.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicFlowering Plant Growth and CultivationFrench-language works237,207