MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980731347 · doi:10.1139/x01-040

Embryo development, megagametophyte storage product accumulation, and seed efficiency in <i>Taxus brevifolia</i>

2001· article· en· W1980731347 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Erika D. Anderson, John N. Owens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsPolyembryonyOvuleBiologyBotanyEmbryoMegasporeMeristemGametophyteCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taxus brevifolia Nutt. has a reduced ovulate structure that consists of a single ovule in a leaf axil instead of a compound ovulate strobilus. Taxus brevifolia on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, were studied over three seasons. Proembryos occurred from mid-May to mid-June. They underwent four free nuclear divisions forming 16 nuclei before cellularization. Early embryos were present from mid-May to mid-August. Simple polyembryony was observed up to the massive embryo stage, and differential growth of the embryonal cells was interpreted as incomplete cleavage polyembryony. Mid-embryos were present from mid-June to late August and had a distinct protoderm and focal zone. Late embryos were visible from mid-July onwards. Carbohydrates began accumulating at the early embryo stage, whereas proteins and lipids accumulated in the late embryo stage. The presence of a red aril corresponded to increased amounts of lipid in the megagametophyte cells. Individual seeds matured from July until November. The seed efficiency ranged from 0 to 16% and averaged 5%. Prezygotic loss was the most common fate of ovules, followed by postzygotic loss. Possible causes of this poor seed efficiency are poor pollination success, insect damage, or light limitation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207