MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756235427 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n10p198

Germination of Pomegranate Seeds under Sarcotesta Extraction Methods and Drying

2017· article· en· W2756235427 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deived Uilian de Carvalho, Maria Aparecida da Cruz, Elisete Aparecida Fernandes Osipi, Jethro Barros Osipe, Ronan Carlos Colombo, Jéssica de Lucena Marinho, Maria Aparecida Fonseca Sorace, Conceição Aparecida Cossa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationPunicaDistilled waterExtraction (chemistry)Immersion (mathematics)Pulp and paper industryHorticultureMaterials scienceChemistryBiologyMathematicsChromatographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aiming to evaluate the effect of degumming methods and natural drying, as well as, the influence of different periods of seeds in quicklime solution on Punica granatum L. germination, were conducted two experiments. At first, the seeds from ripe fruits were subjected to the following sarcotesta extraction: natural fermentation at room temperature, during 72 hours; immersion in quicklime (CaO), during 24 hours; and non-degumming, taken as control. For the second experiment, the extraction method was carried out by the following mixture: seeds, quicklime, and distilled water; differing the immersion period (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 hours). In both, the experimental design was completely randomized, performing the water content and germination test. The quicklime method is efficient to degrade and to eliminate the sarcotesta on P. granatum seeds, and the drying process provides a better germination. In addition, there is a linear increase on seed physiological quality when upgrades the immersion period in quicklime solution.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207