MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2350245189

Effect of the Different Chemistry Mutagens on the Germination and Growth of Rice Seed

2008· article· en· W2350245189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wang Lin-hui

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMagnetic and Electromagnetic Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingGerminationAgronomyCultivarHorticultureBiologyChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uses different type chemistry mutagens treated the paddy rice seed, The results showed that:with chemistry mutagen processing density increase, The paddy rice seed's germination viability, the germination percentage, the vigor index, root and bud the growth condition and so on basically have a decreasing trend. But low density EMS(0.5%), MNU(0.05%) has enhanced the function which to rice seed germination percentages, the germination tendency, the vigor index as well as the promotion late rice seed root and the bud grows;High concentration EMS(2.0%), NaN3 (2×10-3mol/L)reduce the germination percentage and the vigor index of seed. And high concentration chemistry mutagens that 2.0%EMS and 2×10-3mol/L NaN3 has more inhibitory effect on bud growth of rice than on its root. The results compared with contrast showed that root longness and seedling high of growth fluctuation was early rice more wide than the late rice after treated with chemical mutagens. and shows early rice more sensitive than the late rice. When EMS and the NaN3 density is higher separately than 1.0×10-3mol/L, 2.0%, above ground (stem and leaf) and under-ground (root) of the paddy rice seedling are suppressed, The exhibition is that the root longness and the seedling high become shortens(except R974), And reaches the significance level compared with contrast.

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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicMagnetic and Electromagnetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207