MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040078328 · doi:10.4161/psb.4.2.7633

Not-so-tip-growth

2009· letter· en· W2040078328 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Signaling & Behavior · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExocytosisBiologyTip growthFluorescence recovery after photobleachingVesicleCell wallBiophysicsLive cell imagingConfocalApex (geometry)Fluorescence correlation spectroscopyPlant cellPollen tubeCell biologyBotanyFluorescencePollenCellOpticsMembraneBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In tip-growing plant cells such as pollen tubes and root hairs, surface expansion is confined to the cell apex. Vesicles containing pectic cell wall material are delivered to this apical region to provide the material necessarily to build the expanding cell wall. Quantification of wall expansion reveals that the surface expansion rates are not highest at the pole but instead in an annular region around the pole. These findings raise the question of the precise localization of exocytosis events in these cells. Recently, we used spatio-temporal image correlation spectroscopy (STICS) in combination with high temporal resolution confocal imaging to characterize the intracellular movement of vesicles in growing pollen tubes. These observations, together with the analysis of FRAP (fluorescence recovery after photobleaching) experiments, indicate that exocytosis is likely to occur predominantly in the same annular region where wall expansion rates are greatest. Therefore, tip growth in plant cells does not seem to happen exactly at the tip.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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