MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2368393246

Effects of Chemical Factors on Pollen Vitality of Clausena lansium

2008· article· en· W2368393246 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zeng Jian-ping

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationPollenBiologyBotanyHorticulturePlant growthVitality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article,the effects of different plant growth regulators and mineral elements on the pollen germination rate and the growth of pollen tubes of Clausena lansium are analyzed.Experimental results showed that different chemical factors had different effects on the germination rate of mature pollens and the growth of the pollen tubes.Among the three mineral elements B,Ca and Mn,germination rates of mature pollens of Clausena lansium increased in this order BMnCa,while the rates of growth of the pollen tubes followed the order of MnCaB.Plant growth regulators IBA,GA3,and IAA could promote the germination of the pollens,and their effects decreased from IBA to GA3 to IAA.As for the rates of growth of the pollen tubes,the order was GA3IAAIBA.Among the chemical factors,the most significant promotion of the germination rate of the mature pollens of Clausena lansium came from IBA at a concentration of 1.5 mmol/L,which resulted in an increase of 22.6%(equivalent to 322.1 times than that of the control).The most effective promoter for the rates of growth of the pollen tubes,reaching a growth rate of 109.7μm/h per hour,was MnCl2 at 60 mmol/L(equivalent to 22.6 times than that of the control).

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207