Development of the axillary bud complex in <i>Echinocystis lobata</i> (Cucurbitaceae): interpreting the cucurbitaceous tendril
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Cucurbitaceae, the tendrils, coiling organs used for climbing and mechanical support, are part of an axillary bud complex (ABC). Although the morphological nature of tendrils and the branching pattern of the ABC in the Cucurbitaceae have been much studied, their homology remains unresolved, with hypothesized candidates being the leaf, flower, stem, or stem-leaf combination. We used Echinocystis lobata as a model to study the early ontogeny of the ABC with epi-illumination microscopy and serial resin sections. The ABC produces four structures (proximal to distal, relative to the subtending leaf) as the result of two successive subdivisions: an inflorescence of staminate flowers, a solitary pistillate flower, a lateral bud, and a tendril. The first separates the tendril primordium from the continuation of the ABC, and the second separates the staminate inflorescence and the ABC. The pistillate flower apparently forms between the staminate inflorescence and the lateral bud. Because there is no subtending leaf during these subdivisions and the first lateral appendages in the resulting primordia arise in the same plane, we conclude that the tendril and other organs formed by the ABC are lateral branches of equal morphological value. This study is the basis for continuing comparative and functional morphological studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".