MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387228447 · doi:10.59720/15-011

Hydrogen Sulfide Inhibits Flowering but Hastens New Leaf Growth in Bok Choy (Chinese Cabbage)

2015· article· en· W4387228447 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yafan Yang, Shuangshuang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emerging Investigators · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLakehead University
KeywordsSodium hydrosulfideHorticultureChemistryHydrogen sulfideBrassicaTap waterChlorophyllBotanyBiologySulfur

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless, toxic, and flammable gas with the smell of rotten eggs. High concentrations of H2S are toxic, but a very small amount of H2S can help plants and our bodies in many ways. The unexpected flowering (bolting) of leafy greens inhibits leaf growth and reduces the leaf quality, and the effect of H2S on plant bolting is still unknown. Here we investigated the effects of H2S on flowering and leaf growth by using the hearts of bok choy (Brassica rapa subsp. Chinensis), a type of Chinese cabbage. Incubation of bok choy hearts for 16 days in a solution of sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS), a H2S donor, significantly repressed bok choy flowering and shortened flower stems. In contrast, the flowering of bok choy in the tap water and sodium chloride (NaCl) groups was normal, with longer flower stems and many flowers. NaHS had no effect on the growth of leaf stems or on leaf chlorophyll contents. In addition, NaHS significantly reduced pollen viability but induced the growth of new leaves from the bottom part of bok choy hearts, in comparison with the two control groups, tap water and NaCl. These observations indicate that H2S inhibits flowering but hastens new leaf growth in bok choy. Not only can this discovery help grow green vegetables, but it can also potentially help control weeds.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Emerging InvestigatorsSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207