MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025030673 · doi:10.1139/b09-043

A quantitative analysis of leaf growth parameters in<i>Myriophyllum aquaticum</i>(Haloragaceae)

2009· article· en· W2025030673 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Bernard Jeune, Christian Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyAllometryShootBotanyGrowth rateSpecific leaf areaPhyllotaxisMeristemPhotosynthesisEcologyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This quantitative developmental study examines various parameters associated with the growth of leaves of Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. on different shoot systems from a single clonal plant to determine the dynamics of growth processes during the development of a normal, typical leaf. Early stages of development, representing the morphogenetic phase of leaf formation, were used to document the growth rate of leaves, the dynamics of leaf lobe formation, the location of initiation of leaf lobes, and allometric relationship between leaves and leaf lobes. Even though there were variations in maximum leaf length between shoot systems, similar growth patterns were observed. In addition, during the exponential phase of growth, the location of initiation of those lobes was constant in each shoot system. There was a positive correlation between the rate of growth of leaves and the rhythm of initiation of lobes resulting in the formation of strikingly similar leaf morphologies regardless of whether the leaf is long with more lobes or short with fewer lobes. An allometric relationship between leaf length and the length of its lobes was observed. To our knowledge, this has never been noted in a system like this. The existence of constant parameters of growth is essential to maintain some degree of consistency but variations in the modalities of those parameters allow for flexibility within the system. For example, the interplay between rates of leaf growth and duration of growth can explain the range of maximum leaf length observed or can be viewed as a way of using different means to achieve similar end products (fast rate of growth and short duration versus slower rate of growth and longer duration).

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207