MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016857390 · doi:10.1139/b03-085

Incorporation of [<sup>3</sup>H]sucrose after the resorption of nectar from the spur of <i>Platanthera chlorantha</i> (Custer) Rchb.

2003· article· en· W2016857390 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Małgorzata Stpiczyńska

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNectarOrchidaceaeAnthesisBotanyResorptionBiologySucrosePollinationHorticulturePollenFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platanthera chlorantha (Custer) Rchb., a moth-pollinated orchid, secretes abundant nectar. Sucrose incorporation following the resorption of nectar from the spurs of the pollinated and unpollinated flowers of P. chlorantha was investigated. The study was carried out using 3H-labelled sucrose and microautoradiography. In this orchid species, nectar was secreted and accumulated in the spur. Inside the spur, the epidermis developed numerous unicellular secretory hairs engaged in nectar secretion and resorption. Nectar resorption occurred near the end of anthesis. Following pollination, sucrose from the resorbed nectar was incorporated into starch accumulated in parenchyma cells of developing capsules. Additionally, radioactivity in the cell walls of parenchyma and ovules was also observed. The label was not detected either in the gynoecium of unpollinated flowers or in tuberous roots of all plants investigated. Therefore, the results demonstrate that carbohydrates reclaimed from uncollected nectar in pollinated flowers of P. chlorantha are next utilized inside the adjacent maturing fruits.Key words: Platanthera chlorantha, Orchidaceae, nectar resorption, nectary spur, microautoradiography, pollination.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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