MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467785116 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0107

Viability and germination of Scots pine seeds after freezing of harvested cones in vitro

2016· article· en· W2467785116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Markku Nygren, Katri Himanen, Hanna Ruhanen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pineGerminationWater contentHorticulturePinus <genus>BiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scots pine (Pinus silvestris L.) cone and seed water contents were analyzed in two consecutive seasons during maturation stage in the autumn and in January and March before seed dispersal. Cones with different water contents were subjected to 2 h of freezing at −30 °C, and seed viability and laboratory germination of seeds from individual cones after treatment were analyzed. Seed water content could be well predicted with the measurement of the cone water content, and the general relationship between these two could be described with a generalized logistic function. On average, the water content of cones was 5%–10% units higher than the seeds inside them. The higher the cone water content at the onset of freezing treatment, the higher the proportion of seeds with apparent damage (based on visual inspection of seeds using X-ray images) in that particular cone. High water content in cones also resulted in decreased germination after freezing treatment. The critical cone water content for 50% germination after freezing at −30 °C was approximately 31.3% (fresh mass basis). This corresponds to 21.6% water content in seeds.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207