MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028887115 · doi:10.1086/668789

Floral Morphology of<i>Apuleia leiocarpa</i>(Dialiinae: Leguminosae), an Unusual Andromonoecious Legume

2013· article· en· W2028887115 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin Zimmerman, Gerhard Prenner, Anne Bruneau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Society of Plant Taxonomists
KeywordsBiologyCaesalpinioideaeGynoeciumStamenHermaphroditeInflorescenceBotanyGenusPollenFabaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apuleia leiocarpa (Vogel) J. F. Macbr. is a South American tree species belonging to the caesalpinioid subfamily of the Leguminosae. Phylogenetic analyses have placed Apuleia into the Dialiinae s.l. clade, with which it shares numerous morphological similarities, including dichasial cymose inflorescences. The genus has also been reported to be andromonoecious, a trait not seen elsewhere in its clade and only infrequently in the Caesalpinioideae. Scanning electron microscopy and stereomicroscopy were used to investigate the floral morphology of A. leiocarpa. It was found that while hermaphrodite flowers produced a single carpel and two stamens, staminate flowers developed three stamens but showed no signs of any carpel development. The third stamen fills the volume of the missing carpel within the bud as it grows. Inflorescences also appear to produce approximately four times as many staminate as hermaphrodite flowers. Both this high male-to-bisexual ratio and the early determination of gender seen in Apuleia are rare in the Caesalpinioideae and suggest that andromonoecy developed in this genus as a means to increase pollen dispersal rather than in response to resource limitations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207