Favourable and Unfavourable Effect of Homogeneous Static Magnetic Field on Germination of Zea mays L (Maize) Seeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of homogeneous static magnetic stimulation on Zea mays L. (maize) seeds and its potential utility as a tool in biotechnological development for the improvement of maize seeds was studied. The values of magnetic flux density that influenced the biological development of some plant species of the Poaceae family were determined from a literature review. ICA V-305 variety corn seeds were exposed to seven values of magnetic flux density between 50.0 mT and 250.0 mT, with homogeneity of 98.4% and at (1.0, 3.0, 5.0 and 7.0) min exposure times. The mean germination time (MGT), index of germination speed (VGer) and germination rate (Gmax) were evaluated as responses. The magnetic flux density of 50.0 mT with a one-minute exposure time recorded the largest reduction (12.4%) in the MGT while the germination rate for the same treatment increased by 17.4% with respect to the control. No significant effects of the magnetic treatment were recorded for the Gmáx . The magnetic treatment of seeds with homogeneous static fields does not have as favourable a response as the treatments with fields with magnetic gradients, that is to say, using toroidal magnets.
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) | 0.000 | 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".