MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311920711 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0260

Morphological, physiological, biochemical characteristics and bud success responses of myrobolan 29 c plum rootstock subjected to water stress

2016· article· en· W2311920711 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
İbrahim Bolat, Murat Dikilitaş, Ali İkinci, Sezai Erċışlı, Tahsin Tonkaz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRootstockBuddingCultivarShootBiologyHorticultureProlineWater stressDrought stressBotanyBiomass (ecology)Agronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water stress treatments on some morphological, biomass, physiological, biochemical characteristics and budding success of apricot and plum cultivars/Myrobolan 29 C plum rootstock have been studied in a pot-experiment trial. Three different water stress levels (control-100 %, medium-75 %, and severe-50 % of the pot capacity) were applied. The results showed that measured morphological, biomass, physiological and biochemical characteristics as well as budding success of cultivars on the rootstocks were affected by water stress. Water stress, both moderate and severe, significantly decreased the relative shoot length, diameter and shoot stem cross sectional area, plant total fresh and dry weights. Increases in water stress led to increases in peroxidase activities, phenol and proline contents in plum rootstock. Increases in water stress also resulted in reduction in budding success in both Formosa (plum cv)/Myrobolan 29 C (90.00 % and 48.33 %) and San Castrese (apricot cv)/Myrobolan 29 C (87.50 % and 42.83 %).

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207