Blue light inhibition of hyphal tip growth of Rhizopus arrhizus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a previous experiment we found that blue light inhibited organelle movements. In this study we investigate if blue light has effects on hyphal tip growth in a very fast-growing fungus R. arrhizus. Already short time irradiation with blue light typical for FITC or GFP excitation (450-490 nm). Inhibits fungal tip growth. If the irradiation is short less than 30 seconds the tip growth rate recovers relatively fast. Blue light excitation could therefore create artefacts in fluorescence microscopy if organelle dynamics are investigated. Comment: This work was originally presented as a poster at Fifth International Mycological Congress, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 14 - 21, 1994.It is now made available as a preprint since colleagues have asked for the data. NOTE: This preprint can be cited but citation year should be 1995 since the citations and the discussion has not been updated. Anyone thinking this work is worth publishing with peer review should feel free to help me update it. Contact me first and I will then make you first author for the submission if you are interested.Email: stefan@olssonstefan.com
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".