MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2363713174

Study on the Seed Water Absorption Characteristics and Germinating Temperature of Bromus rigidus Roth

2008· article· en· W2363713174 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wang Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationDegree CelsiusAbsorption of waterHorticultureAbsorption (acoustics)AgronomySignificant differenceChemistryBotanyMathematicsMaterials scienceBiologyPhysicsComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study on the seed water absorption characteristics and germination of Bromus rigidus Roth in the different temperature conditions showed that the absorbing water process was divided 3 stages.The water absorption speed of seed showed the trend of quick-slow.The values of water-absorbing speed ran to the maximum(0.0918g/h)in 2 hours.It needs 8 hours to arrive at the saturation.The minimum amount of water absorption that seed could germinate was about the 53.03 percent of the dry weight of seed.The seeds of Bromus rigidus Roth germinated well and the germanition percentage was 97.5% under a constant temperature of 20 centigrade.Germination index reached the maximum(90.08) under the 25 centigrade.The next was 30 centigrade,but there weren't difference between 20 and 25 centigrade.The value of vigor index arrived at the maximum(1656.489) under the 20 centigrade and had the significant difference with other treatments.The optimum temperature of Bromus rigidus Roth was 20℃ if the germination percentage,germination index and the value of vigor index were all considered.The germinating of seed was restrainted obviously when the temperature rised to 35℃.But it could put up with the lower tempeerature(5℃).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.204
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207