Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developmental studies suggest that the compound leaf is a more or less incompletely developed shoot. Instead of treating compound leaves and shoots as non-homologous, this interpretation draws a continuum between them. The present work considers the plant as a hierarchical series of units on which similar developmental processes are at work, and where each level (shoot, compound leaf, leaflet) is 'repeated' by the next higher level. Measurements related to the expression of developmental processes operating on leaves at the shoot level and on leaflets at the compound leaf level were used to determine if similar processes are at work at these different levels during early stages of organogenesis. Plants with compound leaves showing acropetal leaflet inception, representing a total of 16 species from ten eudicot families, were studied. Based on several types of quantitative analyses, there appears to be a continuum between so-called shoots, compound leaves and leaflets in the species studied. This perspective, qualified as dynamic morphology, both parallels and complements the classical interpretation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it