MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170537882

Vitro seedling development and Asymbiotic seed germination of Epidendrum ibaguense Kunth. (Orchidaceae)

2014· article· en· W3170537882 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hasnain Adnan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationOrchidaceaeSeedlingPrimordiumActivated charcoalBiologyBotanyHorticultureChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of four asymbiotic media; Murashige and Skoog (MS), Phytamax (Sigma, USA; PM), Mitra et al.  (M) and Knudson ‘C’ (KC) were evaluated for seed germination and early protocorm development in Epidendrum ibaguense Kunth. Besides, effects of peptone, activated charcoal and plant growth regulators (6-benzylaminopurine (BAP) and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)) were also studied. Maximum seed germination was achieved on M and PM (~90%) fortified with 2 gl-1 peptone. Medium supplemented with 1.0 mgl-1 BAP improved seed germination in contrast to basal media whereas 2,4-D either singly or in combination with BAP remarkably reduced the germination rate. Activated charcoal in the medium enhanced germination of seed, induced significantly large size protocorms (1.63�?�18) and early rooting in protocorms. Within two weeks of culture, spherules emerged out due to cracking of the seed coat. The spherules developed into protocorms with a leaf primordium at apical portion after 3 to 4 weeks and gradually produced complete seedlings. Strong and stout root system was induced in in vitro seedlings on transferring in half strength PM and M media fortified with 0.5-1.0 mgl-1 indole acetic acid (IAA). Well-rooted seedlings were transferred to green house with 90% survival.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicPlant tissue culture and regenerationFrench-language works237,207