MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383979301

Influence of Strontium,Cesium,Uranium Upon the Seed Germination of Five Plants

2013· article· en· W2383979301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zeng Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationNuclideSunflowerNitrateAgronomyChemistryHorticultureBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A germination test of sunflower,soybean,rape,corn and cucumber seeds treated with 0,0.1,0.5,1.0,2.5,5.0,7.5,10.0 mmol/L concentrations of strontium(Sr) nitrate,cesium(Cs) nitrate and uranium(U) nitrate was conducted to study the effects of nuclides on the seed germination of plants and provide the basess for phytoremediation.Results indicate that nuclides and their concentrations influence upon the seed germination rates of plants,and the influences of uranium is more than those of strontium and cesium.The influences of nuclide,concentrations and their interaction upon seed germination rates are very significant.The seed germination rate of corn has a little change to Sr,Cs,U and their concentrations.Those of sunflower,rape and cucumber have a little change to Sr,Cs and their concentrations,but a big change to U and its concentrations.That of soybean has a fluctuation change to Sr,Cs,U and their concentrations.There is very signficant negative correlation(r=-0.928 9**)between nuclide concentration and germination rate of plant seeds in general,but the relevance of differen nuclides and plants are different.The effects of plants,plants×nuclides,plants×concentrations and plants×nuclides×concentrations upon seed germination rates all are very significant.The low nuclide concentration less than 0.5 mmol/L can promote seed germination of plants,and the nuclide concentrations more than 1.0 mmol/L would decrease seed germination rates on the whole.The effects of concentrations of Sr,Cs and U on the germination rate of plant seeds are different.

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 score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207