Comparing moisture content determination using low-constant temperature drying and high temperature drying in physical dormant species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broad objective of this study was to compare the moisture content of seed with physical dormancy, i.e., impermeable coat, of 12 tree species using a high-temperature drying method (HTDM; 130°C for 1 to 4 hours) and a low-constant temperature drying method (LTDM; 103°C for up to 48 hours), the two standard methods recommended by the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA). We used cut and intact seeds dried at different temperatures for various durations. The results of intact seeds dried at 130ºC for 4 hours compared with those dried at 103ºC for 17 hours indicated an increased moisture content at 103ºC up to 3% in four species and a lower moisture content for eight species compared with the 130ºC group. Across species, cut seeds generally had higher moisture contents than intact seeds, but a few species had marginal differences when dried for 48 hours at 103ºC. We explore the possibility that cutting or grinding seeds may elevate the moisture content, leading to artifacts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".