MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033926797 · doi:10.1139/b07-048

Pollen polymorphism in<i>Thymus capitatus</i>(Lamiaceae)

2007· article· en· W2033926797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S Karabournioti, Eleftherios P. Eleftheriou, Andreas Thrasyvoulou, Costas Fasseas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenBiologyPalynologyBotanyLamiaceaePolymorphism (computer science)MorphometricsZoologyGenotypeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymorphism with respect to size and structural characteristics occurs in pollen grains of several species. Pollen grains of Thymus capitatus (L.) Hoffmans & Link. from three different areas of Greece were collected, and their palynological characteristics were measured. Using light and scanning electron microscopy, a quantification of pollen polymorphism of T. capitatus was achieved by measuring the size and the characteristics of exine sculpture. The measurements were repeated during 3 successive years, and statistical analyses with one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test were applied. Results revealed differences in the exine pattern between the locations; also, three palynological characteristics (surface, perimeter, and equatorial diameter) differed statistically. The results clearly indicate that pollen grains of T. capitatus are polymorphic between the sampling areas. The polymorphism has been related to environmental parameters and mainly with water availability. Average rainfall seems to be the main factor contributing to the morphological variation of pollen grains by affecting their size and exine sculpture.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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