MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472904290 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-231-1_18

In Vivo 1H-NMR Microimaging During Seed Imbibition, Germination, and Early Growth

2011· article· en· W2472904290 on OpenAlexaff
Victor V. Terskikh, Kerstin Müller, Allison R. Kermode, Gerhard Leubner‐Metzger

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityNational Research Council CanadaSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImbibitionGerminationMagnetic resonance imagingIn vivoSeedlingResolution (logic)High resolutionNuclear magnetic resonanceMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringBiologyRadiologyBotanyMedicineComputer sciencePhysicsBiotechnologyRemote sensingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a superior noninvasive diagnostic tool widely used in clinical medicine, with more than 60 million MRI tests performed each year worldwide. More specialized high-resolution MRI systems capable of a resolution that is 100-1,000 times higher than standard MRI instruments are used primarily in materials science, but are used with increasing frequency in plant physiology. We have shown that high-resolution (1)H-nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) microimaging can provide a wealth of information about the internal anatomy of plant seeds as small as 1 mm or even smaller. This chapter covers the methods associated with these imaging techniques in detail. We also discuss the application of (1)H-NMR microimaging to study in vivo seed imbibition, germination, and early seedling growth.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207