MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967802255 · doi:10.1139/b02-016

Fruit structure of <i>Hippophae rhamnoides</i> cv. Indian Summer (sea buckthorn)

2002· article· en· W1967802255 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jayne Harrison, T. Beveridge

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemical and Pharmacological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedicelHippophae rhamnoidesCalyxTrichomeBiologyBotanyEpidermis (zoology)Viral tegumentRacemeHorticultureInflorescenceAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) (Elaeagnaceae) has become of interest as a crop because of the nutritive qualities of its fruit. In this study, structural features of the fruit of H. rhamnoides ssp. cv. Indian Summer were examined by light microscopy. Additional information was obtained for branches, racemes, pedicels, female flowers, and seeds. Each fruit contains an embryo encased in a seed coat that is surrounded by a thin seed sac or pericarp with a persistent style, all of which is enclosed in the hypanthium. The hypanthium, which forms the fleshy portion of the fruit, contains vascular bundles, storage tissues, an endodermis, and an epidermis. The epidermis contains many trichomes and is confluent with the exterior of the pedicel. The calyx of the fruit is slightly open, and trichomes are present in the calyx opening, in the seed cavity, and on the tail of the seed sac. Harvest by removing the pedicel from the fruit rips the epidermis, which exposes fruit flesh and results in loss of juice from the fruit. Information on fruit structure is relevant to methods of harvesting.Key words: Hippophae, Elaeagnaceae, rhamnoides, mongolica Rousi, seed, microscopy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPhytochemical and Pharmacological StudiesFrench-language works237,207