Preformation, neoformation, and shoot structure in <i>Nothofagus dombeyi</i> (Nothofagaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buds in different positions along trunk, main branch, secondary branch, and short branch parent shoots of young Nothofagus dombeyi (Mirb.) Blume trees were dissected, and the number of organs of their rudimentary shoots was counted. Bud contents were compared with the number of organs of sibling shoots developed in positions equivalent to those of the dissected buds. Cataphyll number was relatively constant for all buds. The number of green leaf primordia differentiated in each bud depended both on the position of the bud on the parent shoot and on the size of the parent shoot. Sibling shoots derived distally from large parent shoots had more nodes than the rudimentary shoots of buds in a similar position. Proximal sibling shoots derived from large parent shoots and all sibling shoots derived from small parent shoots are entirely preformed. In N. dombeyi, the size gradient of the sibling shoots derived from a particular parent shoot relates mostly to variation in organ preformation, organ neoformation, and internode extension. The expression of each of these sources of variation is related to the position of the sibling shoot on the parent shoot and on the position of the parent shoot on the tree. Consideration is given to the role of environmental conditions on tree development, in view of the species' morphogenetic gradientsKey words: branching, bud content, sylleptic branching, leaf primordia, Nothofagus, preformation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".