MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038168070 · doi:10.1086/664715

The Ultrastructure and Botanical Affinity of the Problematic Mid-Mesozoic Palynomorph<i>Ricciisporites tuberculatus</i>Lundblad

2012· article· en· W2038168070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luke Mander, Margaret E. Collinson, William G. Chaloner, Anthony P.R. Brain, David G. Long

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGymnospermBiologyBotanyOvuleMegasporeMesozoicPollenUltrastructurePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ricciisporites tuberculatus Lundblad is a prominently sculptured palynomorph that is permanently united in tetrads. This palynomorph has a wide geographic distribution and reaches a stratigraphically important acme in the Late Triassic of Europe, Greenland, and Arctic Canada. This palynomorph has not yet been found in situ in a fossilized reproductive structure, and consequently its botanical affinity is unclear. Some authors have suggested that R. tuberculatus was produced by a seed plant, but others have suggested that this palynomorph was produced by a liverwort comparable to Riccia. In order to clarify the botanical affinity of R. tuberculatus, we have analyzed its morphology using SEM and TEM. Individual grains within the tetrad are equipped with a single distal colpus, and the ultrastructure of the palynomorph wall is characterized by a granular inner sexine and an electron-dense laminated nexine. These morphological features ally R. tuberculatus to the gymnosperms. The combination of strongly ornamented monocolpate pollen grains permanently united in tetrahedral tetrads is unusual and to the best of our knowledge has not been reported previously in a gymnosperm. This may represent an extinct strategy to promote the fertilization of several archegonia in an ovule leading to simple polyembryony.

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)0.001
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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