Comparative micromorphological and phytochemical studies on the roots of three Viburnum (Caprifoliaceae) species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the roots of Viburnum punctatum Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don, Viburnum coriaceum Blume, and Viburnum erubescens Wall. ex DC. were collected from the Nilgiri and Coimbatore hills in Tamil Nadu, India. Transverse sections of plant roots were prepared with the aid of a rotary microtome. The sections, each at a thickness of 10 µm, were stained and fixed in Canada balsam and the morphoanatomical features of each specimen were noted. The specimens were powdered using a mechanical grinder and were mounted in suitable media for starch grains, sclereids, druses, fibres, and vessels. Morphoanatomical features of diagnostic importance were recorded under different magnifications, followed by the determination of dimension and histological features of root components using a calibrated eyepiece micrometer and a polariser. The starch grains averaged 12, 17, and 20 µm in diameter in V. erubescens, V. punctatum, and V. coriaceum, respectively. The fibres were about 1 mm long in V. punctatum and V. coriaceum, whereas those found in V. erubescens specimens were around 700 µm. Qualitative chemical screening indicated that phytosterols, triterpenoids, and phenolic compounds and their glycosides were among the commonly found phytoconstituents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".