Floral Biology and in vitro Germination of Nasturtium Pollen Grains Grown With Poultry Litter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The plant Tropaeolum majus, popularly known as nasturtium, presents food, ornamental and medicinal importance. Studies on floral and carpometric characteristics generate basic knowledge for areas of science such as botany, genetics and plant breeding. This work has the objectives of analyzing the effect of combinations of doses of poultry litter on floral structures and the in vitro germination of T. majus pollen grains. From the experimental matrix Plan Puebla III were defined 9 combinations of poultry litter doses incorporated and covered. The design of the experiments was entirely random, varying the replicates number. The number of stamens, petals, sepals and carpels was verified per floral bud in each treatment. The in vitro germination rate of pollen grains was estimated in 5 culture media and 2 germination times, from flower buds randomly collected in the experiment. The overall mean of stamens, sepals, petals and carpels per floral bud was 8.23; 5; 5 and 3, respectively. The combinations of poultry litter doses influenced only the number of stamens. The in vitro germination rate of T. majus pollen grains varied in the culture media. There was no association between the combinations of poultry litter doses and the in vitro germination rate of pollen grains.
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) | 0.001 | 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".