Study of Identifying Seed Traditional Chinese Medicine by Somatic Cell Chromosome in Root-Tip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To investigate the identificated characteristics of somatic cell chromosome in seed traditional Chinese medicine.Methods:Seeds were sprouted at 25℃,root tip of 0 5cm length were cut and treated in 0 03% colchicine diluted with 0 002mol/L 8 hydroxyquinoline for 8hours,fixing them for 12～14hours with Carnoy's fixative,differentiating for 8～12min with 1mol/L hydrochloric acid at 60℃,pressing to section in carmine for staining.Observing them under microscope,then choosing the samples that differentiated well,giving off the cover at frozen station and mount in Canada balsam(neutral mounting medium),micro photographing,counting and measuring.Results:There were significant differences in the numbers and karyotypes of somatic cell chromosomes in root tip between true and false ones.Conclusion:It could reflect inner essence from external morphological differences in different species and identify true or false exactly,to applying cytology theory and method to microscopically identifying seed traditional Chinese medicine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".