MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2349434730

Effect of60 Co- γirradiation on the germination of tomato seeds and early seedling growth.

2010· article· en· W2349434730 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhu ZongWen, Dingshi Zha, Weimin Zhu, Guo ShiRong, Zhu LongYing

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Genetic and Mutation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationSeedlingRadicleIrradiationHorticultureBiologyPEG ratioPriming (agriculture)CultivarAgronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two different germination status of tomato cultivar 1479 and yellow pot-cultivate were irradiated by 60 Co-γ rays from 0 Gy to 800 Gy.The effects of the radiation on seed germination and early seedling growth characters were investigated by the method of germination box testing.Different varieties showed significant differences to sensitivity of 60Co-γ rays.The results indicated that the inhibitory effect of 60Co-γ rays on germi-nation of 1479 was much larger than that of yellow pot-cultivate,which mainly manifested in the germination rate and germination velocity.Different germination status of seeds showed different sensitivity to irradiation.30% PEG priming seeds had a stronger sensitivity compared with dry seeds.Although high-dose radiation could not inhibit seeds germination completely,inhibited the growth of the seedlings significantly,mainly demonstrated by the differentiation and growth of radicle.Semi-lethal dose(LD50) could be used to determine the appropriate dose of 60Co-γ irradiation,and yellow pot was 500 Gy to 600 Gy,1479 was 400 Gy to 500 Gy.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicPlant Genetic and Mutation StudiesFrench-language works237,207