MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979952362 · doi:10.1080/0028825x.2006.9513030

A morphological comparison of leaf heteroblasty between New Caledonia and New Zealand

2006· article· en· W1979952362 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kevin C. Burns, John William Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVictoria University of WellingtonStony Brook UniversityVictoria UniversityUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsJuvenileBiologyMorphology (biology)BotanyPlant morphologyHabitatOntogenyEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Leaf heteroblasty, or pronounced changes in leaf morphology during plant development, is a conspicuous phenomenon on many isolated islands. However, morphological comparisons have not been made between islands, and the processes responsible for island heteroblasty are poorly understood. We investigated differences in leaf morphology of heteroblastic trees and shrubs in New Caledonia and New Zealand. Heteroblastic leaves were collected in field searches in several comparable habitat types in both countries. Leaf area, lobing, and degree of circularity were measured on juvenile and adult leaves from 31 species belonging to 19 plant families. Multivariate analysis of variance was then used to compare ontogenetic changes in leaf morphology between countries. Results showed that juvenile leaves were smaller and more lobed than adult leaves. Life history stage did not interact with country, indicating that morphological shifts between juvenile and adult leaves did not differ between New Caledonia and New Zealand. We conclude that island heteroblasty is similar in both locales, despite their strongly different climates, and the phenomenon likely results from some aspect of their shared geological history.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations32
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207