MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2382566867

Effects of Solid Medium Artificial Pollination on the Fruit Setting and Seed Vigor of Tobacco

2008· article· en· W2382566867 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wenlong Suo

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenGerminationPollinationExtenderStarchNicotiana tabacumHorticultureBiologyDiluentBotanyChemistryFood scienceNuclear chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the effects of artificial pollination using solid pollen extenders on the fruit setting percentage and seed vigor of tobacco Yunyan87(Nicotiana tabacum L.).Pure pollen from Yunyan87 diluted with bentonite,flour,GTG powder,skimmed milk powder,bee pollen,soluble starch and talc powder at the proportion of 2∶1,1∶1,1∶2 and 1∶3(pollen:diluent v/v),using pure pollen as control.The results showed that the soluble starch was easy to mix with pure pollen among the different solid medium.The soluble starch diluted pollen(2∶1,pollen:diluent v/v)had great pollen adhesion on stigma,the average fruit setting percentage per plant was 90.4%,the average seed number per capsule was 3003.9,no significant difference was observed compared to control.After harvest,the seed germination energy and germination percentage was 90.3% and 93.3% respectively,the seed vigor was no significant difference compared to control.The above experiments suggest the possible use of soluble starch as a pollen extender for artificial pollination in tobacco seed production,which can reduce the application amount of pure pollen and cost of production.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207