MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404470807 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2024-0080

Testing germination of common milkweed (<i>Asclepias syriaca</i>) from different study sites in the Niagara Region

2024· article· en· W4404470807 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mohammed H. Abass, Liette Vasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGerminationBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to 2014, the milkweed ( Asclepias spp.) was listed as a noxious weed, contributing to its population's decline in Canada. Considering its importance for the lifecycle of the threatened monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus), it has been de-listed, and efforts are in place to re-establish the populations. Seed propagation may assist in increasing the population, but germination is difficult. The objectives of this study were to (1) test the efficacy of three different germination protocols: cold stratification, mechanical scarification, and chemical treatment of ascorbic acid and (2) determine whether environmental conditions could potentially influence germination. Independent experiments were conducted in Petri dishes and in soil, from seeds collected from three sites. In both experiments, mechanical scarification was the most effective pre-germination treatment, followed by cold stratification (4 °C). Germination rates differed among sites with site 3 having the largest germination rate. The tallest seedlings with the largest number of leaves (height mean = 5.95, p &lt; 0.05) were from site 2. Variability might be the result of maternal and environmental effects as plants were exposed to different light intensity and disturbance intensity. Future research should consider conducting genetic analysis on the influence of maternal environmental effects on seed germinability to improve propagation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207