MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990718749 · doi:10.1071/sb11019

Phylogenetic assessment of pollen characters in Myrtaceae

2012· article· en· W1990718749 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew H. Thornhill, Michael D. Crisp

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Systematic Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)
FundersKrell Institute
KeywordsPollenMyrtaceaeBiologyBotanySynapomorphyPaleobotanyNdhFCladisticsSystematicsPlant taxonomyPhylogeneticsInternal transcribed spacerTaxonCharacter evolutionTaxonomy (biology)Evolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeChloroplast DNAClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying synapomorphic morphological characters is needed to select and then accurately place fossils as calibrations on a phylogeny in molecular-dating analyses. The plant family Myrtaceae, with 130 genera and 5500 species, has nine different pollen types, whereas the fossil pollen record of Myrtaceae, represented by the genus Myrtaceidites, putatively extends back to the Cretaceous and also contains at least nine distinct morphospecies. To reveal potential links between extant and fossil pollen, we optimised pollen characters scored from a recent family-wide review of extant Myrtaceae pollen using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) onto a phylogeny of 111 taxa inferred from two chloroplast (matK and ndhF) and one nuclear (internal transcribed spacer, ITS) loci. Our findings indicate the potential use of colpus morphology in diagnosing pollen types in Myrtaceae, whereas the majority of character states of exine pattern, presence of apocolpial island and pollen width appear to be homoplasious. The results of the present study have implications for understanding the relationship between fossil morphospecies and extant Myrtaceae species, and their reliable choice in molecular dating.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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