MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042779081

Planting date effects on the germinability and seedling vigor of Abutilon theophrasti seeds

2004· article· en· W7042779081 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbutilonSeedlingphotoperiodismSowingGerminationTransplanting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae) is a troublesome annual weed in many maize and soybean cropping systems of Canada and the United States. Seeds of A. theophrasti exhibit physical dormancy. Differences in the growing environment of parent plants may influence the germinability of seeds and vigour of seedlings produced by this species because of variation in resource allocation to seed development. Thus, the germinability of seeds and subsequent seedling vigour were examined for A. theophrasti plants grown in monoculture at a density of 4.2 plants m -2 under varying natural photoperiods in central New York State. Treatments were established by transplanting A. theophrasti seedlings on three dates: 15 May, 4 June, and 30 June 2000, which correspond to peak photoperiods of 15, 14, and 13 hours, respectively. Seeds produced under the shorter photoperiod (13 h) weighed, on average, 1.5 mg less than seeds produced under the longer photoperiod (15 h). Contrary to expectations, seeds of A. theophrasti that matured under shorter photoperiods had lower germinability (80%) than seeds produced under longer photoperiods (98%). Early radicle growth, a measure of seedling vigour, did not differ between the photoperiod treatments. Environmental conditions other than photoperiod (i.e. water availability) prevailing during the 2000-growing season may have influenced seed coat thickness and consequently affected the germinability of seeds.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University)Same topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207