MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126338717 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2020-0153

Storage duration, light, temperature, and salinity exposure influence germination of the glycophyte <i>Rhanterium epapposum</i>

2021· article· en· W3126338717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arvind Bhatt, María Mercedes Carón, David Gallacher, Paulo Roberto de Moura Souza‐Filho

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondo para la Investigación Científica y TecnológicaKuwait Institute for Scientific Research
KeywordsGerminationSalinityBiologyDormancyHorticultureSeed dormancyBotanyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regeneration of native species is the first priority for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To this end, it is key to have seeds properly conserved in seed banks and knowledge of seed longevity and (or) dormancy alleviation at different storage time intervals. In addition, understanding the germination response of the stored seeds to environmental conditions improves the efficiency of restoration and rehabilitation projects. We investigated the influence of storage duration (1–5 years), light (0 or 12 h of illumination), thermoperiod (night/day temperatures of 15/20 and 20/25 °C), and salinity (0, 100, 200. and 400 mmol/L of NaCl) on seed germination of Rhanterium epapposum, a glycophytic species from the Arabian Peninsula. Seeds maintained viability after five years of storage indoors at room temperature. Three years of storage alleviated seed dormancy. Exposure to 12 h light per day and thermoperiods of 15/20 °C enhanced seed germination. The seeds were glycophytic; after-ripened seeds exposed to salinity exhibited reduced rates of germination that did not recover after the salinity was alleviated.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207