MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043367983 · doi:10.1139/b02-099

Developmental morphology of normal and atypical flowers of<i>Philodendron insigne</i>(Araceae): a new case of homeosis

2002· article· en· W2043367983 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Denis Barabé, Christian Lacroix, Bernard Jeune

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 International CooperationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Pierre et Marie Curie
KeywordsGynoeciumStamenWhorl (mollusc)InflorescenceBiologyBotanyOvaryAraceaeTepalAnatomyPollenGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early stages of development of the inflorescence of Philodendron insigne were examined using scanning electron microscopy. Pistillate flowers are initiated on the lower portion of the inflorescence and staminate flowers are initiated on the distal portion. The male flowers have three to five stamens. The female flowers have a multilocular ovary consisting of three to five locules. A transition zone consisting of sterile male flowers and atypical bisexual flowers with fused or free carpels and staminodes is located between the male and female floral zones. Generally, the portion of the bisexual flower facing the male zone forms stamens, and the portion facing the female zone develops one or two carpels. In P. insigne, the incomplete separation of staminodes from the gynoecial portion of the whorl shows that the staminodes and carpels belong to the same whorl. The atypical bisexual flowers of P. insigne are believed to be a case of homeosis where carpels have been replaced by sterile stamens on the same whorl. However, there is no regularity in the number of organs involved in the homeotic transformation taking place in atypical bisexual flowers. The presence of atypical bisexual flowers may correspond to a morphogenetic gradient at the level of the inflorescence as a whole.Key words: flower, development, gradient, inflorescence.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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