Propagation of Canadian rose ‘John Franklin’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\nMany researchers are interested in optimizing the clonal micropropagation of ornamental plants. It is known that the varietal specificity of the studied crops makes it necessary to select and optimize the composition of the nutrient medium for each stage of propagation in vitro. The purpose of our research was to identify the effect of the composition and concentration of nutrient hormones on multiple shoot formation, root development in regenerating plants of the rose 'John Franklin' in vitro. A technology has been developed for obtaining a large amount of self-rooted planting material of a winter-hardy decorative rose variety in vitro culture. Clonal micropropagation was performed using vegetative buds as explants. The multiple of shoots is achieved by activating the axillary meristems of the shoots. It has been shown that the efficiency of micropropagation of the 'John Franklin' rose increases on the Murashige and Skoog nutrient medium containing BAP at a concentration of 1.0 mg/l and IAA – 0.5 mg/l. This medium provides high quality regeneration of micro-shoots with a propagation coefficient equal to 5.2. The optimal modification of the nutrient medium at the rooting stage was revealed, and the expediency of using IBA with a concentration of 0.5 mg/l as auxin was noted. The selected conditions allow you to get a larger number of roots on the shoot – 5 pcs. and their greatest length is 51.5 mm.\n
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".