SELF-SIMILARITY IN PLANTS: INTEGRATING MATHEMATICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self−similarity is a conspicuous feature of many plants. Geometric self−similarity is commonly expressed in terms of affine transformations that map a structure into its components. Here we introduce topological self−similarity, which deals with the configurations and neighborhood relations between these components instead. The topological self−similarity of linear and branching structures is characterized in terms of recurrence systems defined within the theory of L−systems. We first review previous results, relating recurrence systems to the patterns of development that can be described using deterministic context−free L−systems. We then show that topologically self−similar structures may become geometrically self−similar if additional geometric constraints are met. This establishes a correspondence between recurrence systems and iterated function systems, which is of interest as a mathematical link between L−systems and fractals. The distinction between geometric and topological self−similarity is useful in biological applications, where topological self−similarity is more prevalent then geometric self−similarity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it