MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032755282 · doi:10.1139/b02-083

Iron-rich particles and globoids in embryos of seeds from phyla Coniferophyta, Cycadophyta, Gnetophyta, and Ginkgophyta: characteristics of early seed plants

2002· article· en· W2032755282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John N. A. Lott, Jessica C. Liu, Kelly A Pennell, Aude Lesage, Marcia West

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBotanyMagnesiumPotassiumBiologyGerminationManganesePhosphorusPhylumChemistryBacteriaPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the first time, iron-rich particles were discovered in embryo-axis tissue from dry seeds of genera in four phyla of seed-producing plants. Iron-rich particles were present in dry seeds of phyla Ginkgophyta (Ginkgo), Cycadophyta (Dioon), Gnetophyta (Ephedra), and within the Coniferophyta, representatives of the families Araucariaceae, Cephalotaxaceae, Cupressaceae, Podocarpaceae, Sciadopityaceae, and Taxaceae. These iron-rich particles were determined by energy dispersive X-ray analysis to be rich in phosphorus and iron, but generally contained considerable potassium, some magnesium, and perhaps calcium, chlorine, manganese, and (or) zinc. Transmission electron microscopy revealed that these particles were often less than 0.33 μm in diameter and were naturally electron dense. These particles differed from the globoids that were present in the same cells. Globoids were rich in phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium, but lacked high levels of iron. Globoids sometimes contained calcium and perhaps traces of iron, manganese, and zinc. Frequently, globoids were more electron-dense and more regularly spherical in shape. Iron-rich particles and globoids are apparently common features in embryos of the early seed plants.Key words: iron-rich particles in seeds, Ginkgophyta, Cycadophyta, Gnetophyta, Coniferophyta, globoids in seeds.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207