MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1830799291 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2014-0136

Gynoecial ontogeny of <i>Anthurium</i>: contributions for floral developmental studies in Araceae (Alismatales)

2014· article· en· W1830799291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Letícia Peres Poli, Lívia Godinho Temponi, Alessandra Ike Coan

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsAnthuriumBiologyAraceaeGynoeciumOntogenyBotanyStamen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies on floral development have widened the knowledge on the floral morphology of Araceae, particularly in genera delimited through classical taxonomic treatments. In Pothoideae, floral ontogenetic studies are limited to some representatives of Pothoidium Schott and Pothos L. and only one species of Anthurium Schott, with no focus on gynoecium. This background reveals a lack of ontogenetic data on the largest genus in the clade. This paper presents gynoecial ontogeny of species circumscribed in different sections of Anthurium, describes gynoecial developmental patterns, and evaluates the relevance of ontogenetic characteristics in the taxonomy of the sections studied. New data for the Araceae include the recognition of four floral developmental phases, the carpellary nature of the ovarian septum, and the development of the symplicate and synascidiate zones of the gynoecium. The apical septum described in Anthurium scandens (Aubl.) Engl. is first reported for the genus in this study. We also highlight the importance of these ontogenetic data as new information for the Pothoideae within Araceae and to understand the notable phases of floral development in the reproductive biology of Anthurium.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207