MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985393603 · doi:10.1139/b04-031

Reassessment of the pits and antipits in soybean seeds

2004· article· en· W1985393603 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fengshan Ma, Carol A. Peterson, Mark Gijzen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndospermAleuroneBiologyCoatBotanyEmbryoCotyledonCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cotyledon has a concave region on its abaxial center called a pit, and the seed coat has a corresponding convex region on its inner surface called an antipit. While it is clear that the pit is lined with large epidermal cells, the anatomical identity of the antipit has been a subject of confusion. The inner surface of the seed coat consists of a compressed endosperm tissue that is subtended by an aleurone layer. In the antipit region of the seed coat, additional endosperm cells are situated between the aleurone layer and the compressed endosperm tissue. These endosperm cells, called cone cells, are similar to ordinary aleurone cells in basic structure. In the present study, it is demonstrated that the surface ornamentations of the antipit are a print of the pit on the compressed endosperm tissue. The functional aspects of the antipit–pit complex are not known. It was previously postulated that the antipit–pit region has an enhanced capability of nutrient translocation to the growing embryo, but there is little evidence to support this hypothesis. Alternatively, the antipit–pit association may provide a structural feature that anchors the embryo within the seed coat while contributing to an overall spherical shape of the seed.Key words: antipit, endosperm, Glycine max, pit, seed coat, soybean.

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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207