MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910900232 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2014-0030

Cell biology of bordered-pit formation in balsam-fir trees

2014· article· en· W1910900232 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rodney Arthur Savidge

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracheidXylemBiologyMiddle lamellaBotanyUltrastructureBiophysicsAnatomyCell wall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mature bordered pit in secondary xylem of Pinaceae comprises a circular border of secondary-wall material that protrudes into the tracheid lumen and is punctuated by a centralized aperture through which sap flows. The overarching border encloses a pit chamber within which is a “membrane”, or diaphragm, consisting of a central torus and margo strands. Bordered-pit pairs are abundantly present in all woods, and their membranes serve as swinging-diaphragm check valves regulating sap flow between adjoining tracheary elements, simultaneously trapping emboli and particulates in water as it moves from roots to leaves. The cell biology of bordered-pit formation in cambial derivatives of Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. was investigated by light and scanning electron microscopy during early stages of cellular differentiation of cambial derivatives into secondary xylem tracheids. A bordered-pit template (BPT), a bordered-pit organelle (BPO), a bordered-pit basal disk, and additional novel structures were found to be associated with bordered-pit formation. Evidence was found that the membrane does not comprise residual compound middle lamella; rather, the membrane forms de novo as BPO remnants. A cell-biology model and new terminology are introduced to explain how BPTs, BPOs, and basal disks contribute to successive stages in formation of bordered-pit pairs.

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 score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207