MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091869899 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2020-0137

Effect of seed size on germination in three species from arid Arabian deserts

2020· article· en· W3091869899 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanjay Gairola, Tamer Mahmoud, Hatem A. Shabana, Asma Alketbi, Shyam S. Phartyal

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationBiologyAridBotanyHorticultureAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many species, seeds with different sizes show diverse responses in their requirements for temperature and light for optimal germination. In this study, the effect of seed size (i.e., small and large) on germination was tested in seeds of Brassica tournefortii Gouan, Lotus garcinii DC., and Salvadora persica L. from arid Arabian Desert habitats. The mean seed size of all three study species differs significantly between small and large-sized seeds. Differences were observed in seed germination between large and small seeds of B. tournefortii and L. garcinii. We found that the large seeds of B. tournefortii and L. garcinii showed a higher germination percentage at all tested temperatures than that displayed by the small seeds. However, both small and large seeds of S. persica germinated equally (100%) well under all tested incubation conditions. Our results show significant differences in germination percentage between the small and large seeds of B. tournefortii at 25/35 °C under a 12 h light regime. However, seeds of L. garcinii showed a significant difference in germination percentage at low temperatures (15/25 °C) under a 12 h light regime.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207