MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4207012067 · doi:10.3368/npj.22.3.345

Propagation of 14 native prairie forbs by sexual and asexual methods

2021· article· en· W4207012067 on OpenAlexaffabout
Poonam Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueNative Plants Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsAssiniboine Community College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForbBiologyEcologyGrassland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian prairies are home to a diverse range of native flowering plants and grasses that support a wide variety of birds, insects, soil microbes, and other wildlife. Although most prairie plants propagate easily from seeds, challenges such as low seed production and complex seed dormancy mechanisms could result in poor seed germination and plant establishment in the field. These issues could be overcome by propagating plants by asexual methods. The present study compares the sexual and asexual methods of propagation of prairie native plant species. Fourteen native plant species commonly found in southwestern Manitoba, Canada—curlycup gumweed, western pearly everlasting, yarrow, white sagebrush, Maximilian sunflower, Missouri goldenrod, bluebell bellflower, wild cucumber, white prairie clover, Canadian milkvetch, blue giant hyssop, wild bergamot, blue vervain, and northern bed-straw—were propagated from seeds, stem cuttings, and root suckers. Although all methods lead to the successful propagation of tested native plant species, multiplication with stem cuttings had clear advantages over the other 2 propagation methods. Propagation with stem cuttings was effective, faster, less time consuming, and led to uniform and early flowering plants in the field while also overcoming issues of low seed availability, dormancy, and seasonality associated with seed propagation of prairie native plant species. Root suckers also rooted well in the greenhouse, but rooting took a significantly longer time than did stem cuttings. Additionally, the root suckers were available for collection only in a short time frame during early spring in Manitoba.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNative Plants JournalSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207