MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743809348 · doi:10.1186/s40529-017-0188-4

A perspective on orchid seed and protocorm development

2017· review· en· W2743809348 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward C. Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanical studies · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyMeristemMicropropagationGerminationBotanyEmbryoExplant cultureOrchidaceaeEmbryo rescueShootPollinationCell biologyPollenIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This perspective draws attention to the functional organization of orchid seed and protocorm during the course of development. The orchid embryos have a well-organized developmental plan generating a blue-print of a protocorm as they mature. The different phases of embryo development in orchids, i.e. histodifferentiation, storage product synthesis and accumulation, and maturation are essentially similar to other flowering plants. The protocorm is considered as a unique structure designed to establish symbiotic association with mycorrhizal fungi and with the primary goal to form a shoot apical meristem. This perspective brings forth arguments that the processes of embryo and protocorm development are highly programmed events, enhancing survival of orchid seeds and plantlets in their natural habitats. Furthermore, the ability of protocorm cells to divide, makes them ideal explants for micropropagation and transformation studies. Through seed germination and micropropagation using protocorms as explants, orchid conservation efforts are greatly enhanced.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations181
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanical studiesSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207