MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508009246 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.35.3.417b

158 Dormancy of Ornithogalum Evaluated by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2000· article· en· W2508009246 on OpenAlexaff
Mark S. Roh, Michael J. Line, Young Hee Joung, P. Brannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScapeInflorescenceDormancyBiologyApex (geometry)HorticultureBotanyBulbCuttingGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ornithogalum hybrid bulbs (selection 327-2) were stored dry at 10, 16, 22, 28, and 35 °C for 6 weeks upon harvest. After storage, bulbs were subjected to a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging to obtain the longitudinal spin-lattice relaxation time (T1) profile across the cross section of intact bulbs and to a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to observe an inflorescence development. Bulbs were forced in a greenhouse maintained at 21/19 °C. When bulbs were stored at 10, T1 was shorter through the cross section of bulbs and the shoot apex was under a vegetative stage. This suggests that dormancy was not broken during the storage, leaf emergence was delayed, and plants failed to flower. Bulbs stored at 22 and 28 °C formed the primary scape and inflorescence with several florets. At the base of the primary scape of bulbs stored at 22 °C, a vegetative apex was observed by both MR imaging (MRI) and SEM. In the center of bulbs where leaves and floral organs were present, T1 was longer as compared to the scales. This suggests that dormancy in the scales was broken and the leaves and scape were ready to emerge. Leaf emergence and flowering was the fastest when bulbs were stored at 22 °C and at 16 or 22 °C, respectively. Due to its nondestructive nature, MRI can be used to study the state of bulb dormancy and also the progress of inflorescence development during bulb storage prior to planting.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207