Encasement in plant morphology: an integrative approach from genes to organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in molecular genetics are prompting developmental plant morphologists to refine the theoretical context of their field. For example, at the level of the action of certain developmental genes, the distinction between recognized structural categories (i.e., stem and leaf) are not obvious. This issue has also been analyzed by morphologists from qualitative and quantitative perspectives and has lead to similar conclusions. Consequently, the classical approach to morphology with a typological view of organ categories is no longer sufficient to explain the set of all possible forms. However, within the context of a dynamic morphology, where processes of development such as growth rate, duration, and distribution are considered, a more encompassing view of the generation of form can be achieved. We therefore propose that classical morphology is a subset of dynamic morphology. The main goal of this paper is to show how new concepts and methods of viewing plant morphology allow us to build a conceptual theoretical framework that may have a predictive value with respect to morphological characteristics as well as molecular properties of organs. The main premise of this commentary, within the context of dynamic morphology, is that the plant consists of an encasement of structures or a nesting of partially similar units. Common developmental processes are in operation at each structural level and variations in the modalities of these processes lead to the development of specific structures. Repeating polymorphic sets (RPS) represent an extension of this perspective on plant development and have the potential to predict the existence of new, perhaps unknown forms. The idea of repeating polymorphic sets can also be extended to outline the activity of specific developmental genes to explain how a wide variety of those genes are interrelated during development to specify form.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".