MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988815867 · doi:10.1186/s13007-019-0506-9

Development, progress and future prospects in cryobiotechnology of Lilium spp.

2019· review· en· W2988815867 on OpenAlexaff
Jingwei Li, Xiao-Chen Zhang, Min‐Rui Wang, Wen‐Lu Bi, Mohammad Faisal, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Gayle M. Volk, Qiao‐Chun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Methods · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersChinese Universities Scientific FundNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLiliumBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lilium is one of the most popular flower crops worldwide, and some species are also used as vegetables and medicines. The availability of and easy access to diverse Lilium genetic resources are essential for plant genetic improvements. Cryopreservation is currently considered as an ideal means for the long-term preservation of plant germplasm. Over the last two decades, great efforts have been exerted in studies of Lilium cryopreservation and progress has been made in the successful cryopreservation of pollen, seeds and shoot tips in Lilium. Genes that exist in Lilium, including those that regulate flower shape, color and size, and that are resistant to cold stress and diseases caused by fungi and viruses, provide a rich source of valuable genetic resources for breeding programs to create novel cultivars required by the global floriculture and ornamental markets. Successful cryopreservation of Lilium spp. is a way to preserve these valuable genes. The present study provides updated and comprehensive information about the development of techniques that have advanced Lilium cryopreservation. Further ideas are proposed to better direct future studies on Lilium cryobiotechnology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant MethodsSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207