MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973960584 · doi:10.1139/b05-017

Comparative analysis of axillary and floral meristem development

2005· article· en· W1973960584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vojislava Grbić

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimordiumMeristemBiologyAxillary budBotanyMorphogenesisLateral shootShootTissue cultureGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Axillary and floral meristems are shoot meristems that initiate postembryonically. In Arabidopsis, axillary meristems give rise to branches during vegetative development while floral meristems give rise to flowers during reproductive development. This review compares the development of these meristems from their initiation at the shoot apical meristem up to the establishment of their specific developmental fates. Axillary and floral meristems originate from lateral primordia that form at flanks of the shoot apical meristem. Initial development of vegetative and reproductive primordia are similar, resulting in the formation of a morphologically defined primordium partitioned into adaxial and abaxial domains. The adaxial primordial domain is competent to form a meristem, while the abaxial domain correlates with the formation of a leaf. This review proposes that all primordia partition into domains competent to form the meristem and the leaf. According to this model, a vegetative primordium develops as leaf-bias while a reproductive primordium develops as meristem-bias.Key words: SHOOTMERISTEMLESS, LATERAL SUPPRESSOR, AINTEGUMENTA, adaxial primordial domain, abaxial primordial domain, shoot morphogenesis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207