MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987537159 · doi:10.1071/bt11175

Pollen morphology of the Myrtaceae. Part 2: tribes Backhousieae, Melaleuceae, Metrosidereae, Osbornieae and Syzygieae

2012· article· en· W1987537159 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew H. Thornhill, Geoff Hope, Lyn A. Craven, Michael D. Crisp

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenBiologyBotanyMyrtaceaePalynologyGenusPaleobotanySyzygiumTribe

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollen morphology of 16 genera and 101 species from the Myrtaceae tribes Backhousieae, Melaleuceae, Metrosidereae, Osbornieae and Syzygieae was surveyed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and light microscopy (LM). The most common pollen type observed in these tribes was parasyncolpate with arcuate or angular colpi, and a rugulate exine pattern. There was little size variation in observed pollen, except for larger pollen in tribe Melaleuceae. All Metrosideros pollen grains had apocolpial islands, as well as all Callistemon species viewed by LM. Choricarpia of tribe Backhousieae had pollen with a distinctive exine pattern. Dicolporate pollen were observed in two tribes, Metrosidereae (Tepualia) and Syzygieae (Acmena), and may be of systematic value. The dicolporate grains of these two genera were also easily distinguishable from each other by using size and pollen side shape as diagnostic characters. Two pollen types were observed within the genus Melaleuca, and a number of pollen types were observed within the species-rich genus Syzygium.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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