MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2385258320

Effects of 2,4-D Seed Soaking Treatment on Leek Seed Germination and Seedling Early Growth

2013· article· en· W2385258320 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geng Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEcology and Conservation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingGerminationHorticultureAgronomyChemistryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

The leek seed of different concentrations and different time of 2,4-D solution soaking treatment was studied,the results showed that: 0.5-10 mg/L 2,4-D solution soaking promoted seed germination,100 mg/L 2,4-D solution soaking inhibited seed germination,and 0.5-1 mg/L 2,4-D solution soaking promoted seedling growth significantly.vigor index,root length,plant weight gained the maximum value under 1 mg/L 2,4-D solution soaking,and it had significant inhibition for growth of the seedling above 10 mg/L 2,4-D solution soaking.1 mg/L 2,4-D solution soaking had the best effect on leek seed germination and seedling growth.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Horticultural experiment on 2,4-D seed soaking and leek germination; the object is plant growth.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The experiment studies herbicide effects on leek germination rather than research practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Seed science experiment on 2,4-D soaking and leek germination; plant physiology.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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 topicEcology and Conservation StudiesFrench-language works237,207