MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978932721 · doi:10.1086/380980

Floral Development and Phylogenetic Position of<i>Schismatoglottis</i>(Araceae)

2004· article· en· W1978932721 on OpenAlexaff
Denis Barabé, Christian Lacroix, Anne Bruneau, Annie Archambault, Marc Gibernau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInflorescenceAraceaeBotanyStamenAppendageSubfamilyPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyAnatomyGeneticsPollenGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the inflorescence of Schismatoglottis, atypical sterile flowers are present between the male and female zones. Contrary to what occurs in Cercestis and Philodendron, where the atypical flowers are bisexual, in Schismatoglottis the atypical flowers consist of aberrant male or female flowers. These atypical unisexual flowers have different forms depending on their position in the inflorescence. The atypical flowers located near the male zone share characteristics with staminate flowers, and those located near the female zone have features in common with pistillate flowers. The developmental pathway of atypical flowers in Schismatoglottis is already channeled in the direction of female or male flowers before the appearance of aberrant appendages. Interpistillar sterile structures located in the female zone correspond to modified female flowers. The systematic position of Schismatoglottis is not fully resolved on a molecular phylogenetic analysis of 45 genera of Araceae, on the basis of chloroplast trnL intron and trnL‐F intergenic spacer sequences. The floral ontogenetic pattern in Schismatoglottis represents a different pathway in the evolution of unisexual flowers in the subfamily Aroideae.

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 score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207