MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2369919495

Effect of ~(60)Co-γRay on Wheat Seed Germination,Seedling Growth and Physiology

2008· article· en· W2369919495 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wang Min

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTiller (botany)SeedlingPoint of deliveryGerminationBiologyAgronomyHorticulture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11 wheat varieties's dry seeds were radiated by ~(60)Co-γray.The results showed that one variety's germination energy,germination rate and germination index of treatment were significantly lower than those of control;7 varieties's length of buds of treatment were significantly or extreme significantly higher than those of control;11 varieties's length of root and activity index of treatment were significantly or extreme significantly lower than those of control;8 varieties's root/bud of treatment were significantly or extreme significantly lowe- rer than control;9 varieties's seedling rate of treatment was significantly lower than that of control. 9 varieties's plant survival rate of treatment was significantly lower than that of control.11 varieties's singal tiller rate,length of leaves,breadth of leaves,root length and winter tiller per plant of treatment were signifi- cantly lower than those of control.9 varieties's winter tiller per plant of treatment was significantly or extreme significantly lowerer than control;7 varieties's content of soluble protein of treatment was significantly or ex- treme significantly lower than control.6 varieties's content of propanedial of treatment was significantly or ex- treme significantly higher than control;10 varieties's content of POD enzyme were significantly or extreme sig- nificantly higher than those of 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207