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

Plant Communication from Biosemiotic Perspective

2006· article· en· W1549357995 on OpenAlexaff
Günther Witzany

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Signaling & BehaviorSame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207