MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994095297 · doi:10.1139/b03-060

Development of the flower and inflorescence of <i>Arum italicum</i> (Araceae)

2003· article· en· W1994095297 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Denis Barabé, Christian R. Lacroix, Marc Gibernau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflorescenceAraceaeBiologyBotanyBristleBractStamenPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spadix of Arum italicum Miller consists of two main parts: a clavate sterile portion (appendix) and a cylindroid fertile portion. In the fertile portion with both male and female zones, there are two zones of sterile flowers (bristles). The basal portion of bristles is surrounded by a verrucose structure consisting of a mass of tissular excrescences. During early stages of development, there is no free space between the different zones of the inflorescence. The elongation of the inflorescence axis is what eventually separates the different zones from each other. There are no atypical flowers that are morphologically intermediate between male and female flowers as is the case in other genera of Aroideae (e.g., Cercestis, Philodendron, Schismatoglottis). The structure of the bristles in the inflorescences of Arum does not correspond to any type of atypical flower (unisexual or bisexual) that has been analysed previously in the Araceae. From a developmental point of view, it is not possible to determine if the bristles correspond to aborted or modified female or male flowers. In the early stages of development, the stamens, staminodes, and appendix are covered by globular masses of extracellular calcium oxalate crystals.Key words: development, unisexual flowers, gradient, calcium oxalate crystals.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207