Sugarcane Bud Chip Encapsulation for ex vitro Synthetic Seed Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Altough the sugarcane crop had a huge world importance the planting system stil the same since the development, needing changes to increase the procution potential. So, the objective of this study was to assess the effect of sugarcane bud chip encapsulation on the initial growth of seedlings. To provide informations for a new planting system, using small stem pieces of sugarcane to produce the seedlings. Two experiments were conducted in a completely randomized design. In the first, bud chip encapsulation was assessed with six concentrations of sodium alginate (0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 g L-1) cross-linked with 300 mM calcium chloride, with the encapsulated chips being kept in a greenhouse. In the second experiment, the capsules resulting from the different sodium alginate concentrations were tested for the dry mass adhered to the bud chip, moisture, swelling index, biodegradability, and solubility. Emergence greater than 70% was obtained at sodium alginate concentrations of 0, 10, and 20 g L-1. The 30, 40, and 50 g L-1 concentrations inhibited seedling emergence and initial growth; however, when the capsule was removed, the bud chips formed viable seedlings. Encapsulation inhibited emergence because the capsule acts as a physical barrier; however, encapsulation may be used for bud chip preservation. The study of new capsules and encapsulation methods may enable the ex vitro production of synthetic sugarcane 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".