MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285260473 · doi:10.15258/sst.2022.50.2.02

Assessing post-harvest interim seed storage conditions: a case study of four boreal plant species

2022· article· en· W4285260473 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Baah-Acheamfour, Jean-Marie Sobze

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed Science and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed Germination and Physiology
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationBiologySolidago canadensisHorticultureBotanyAgronomyInvasive species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The longevity of seeds in storage is modulated by the initial quality as well as the storage conditions. Seeds of four boreal species were stored for a varying amount of time (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks) at 4°C to determine the appropriate interim storage conditions after harvest and before processing. The highest germination of Solidago canadensis (75%), Shepherdia canadensis (79%) and Populus balsamifera (100%) seeds was observed for the four weeks at 4°C treatment. However, P. tremuloides germination was reduced by 22.5% when seeds were kept at 4°C for 3 or 4 weeks relative to the control; the reduction was less (1.5%) when seeds were kept at 4°C for 1 or 2 weeks. No significant difference in mean germination time (MGT) or germination synchrony (SYN) was recorded following the different storage treatments and the control for Populus tremuloides or P. balsamifera . However, in Shepherdia canadensis , the MGT of the seeds in the 3-week treatment was longer, while in Solidago canadensis , the 3 or 4 weeks at 4°C treatment improved the SYN relative to the control. The result suggests opportunities exist to store certain boreal seeds after harvest and before processing without reducing their germination characteristics.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeed Science and TechnologySame topicSeed Germination and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207