MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403786585 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-959-1:087

Somatic Embryogenesis in Picea Suspension Cultures

2005· article· en· W2403786585 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudio Stasolla

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSomatic embryogenesisBiologyEmbryoAbscisic acidAuxinBotanyEmbryogenesisCell biologySomatic cellCytokininDesiccationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generation of somatic embryos in spruce is achieved through the execution of five steps designated as: (1) induction of embryogenic tissue, (2) maintenance of embryogenic tissue, (3) embryo development, (4) embryo maturation, and (5) conversion into plants. Depending on species and genotypes within the same species, each step must be optimized for obtaining maximum results. In general, embryogenic tissue is generated from immature and mature zygotic embryos and maintained in either liquid or solid conditions in the presence of plant growth regulators auxin and cytokinin. Initiation of embryo development in suspension cultured is induced by removal of plant growth regulators, whereas continuation of development and completion of maturation require applications of abscisic acid and imposition of a desiccation period. Both treatments are needed for conferring morphological and physiological maturation to the embryos. Mature somatic embryos are germinated in the absence of plant regulators and embryo conversion (i.e., formation of a functional shoot and root, occurs after a few weeks in culture).

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207