MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549357995 · doi:10.4161/psb.1.4.3163

Plant Communication from Biosemiotic Perspective

2006· article· en· W1549357995 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Signaling & Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganismChemical communicationAbiotic componentBiologyPlant speciesEcologySet (abstract data type)CommunicationPerspective (graphical)Evolutionary biologyPsychologyComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As in all organisms, the evolution, development and growth of plants depends on the success of complex communication processes. These communication processes are primarily sign mediated interactions and not simply an exchange of information. They involve active coordination and active organization-conveyed by signs. A wide range of chemical substances and physical influences serve as signs.Different abiotic or biotic influences require different behaviors. Depending on the behavior, the core set of signs common to species, families, genera and organismic kingdoms is variously produced, combined and transported. This allows entirely different communication processes to be carried out with the same types of chemical molecules.Almost without exception, plant communication are parallel processes on multiple levels, (A) between plants and microorganisms, fungi, insects and other animals, (B) between different plant species as well as between members of the same plant species; (C), between cells and in cells of the plant organism.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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