MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046108746 · doi:10.1139/b07-114

Vertical migration of rays leads to the development of a double-storied phenotype in the cambium of<i>Aesculus turbinata</i>

2008· article· en· W2046108746 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elżbieta Myśkow, Beata Zagórska‐Marek

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCambiumVascular cambiumBiologyBotanyXylem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the vascular cambium of Aesculus turbinata (Blume) the double-storied structure develops slowly. Initially, the arrangement of primary rays is nonstoried. New secondary rays are initiated during cambial expansion. Rays grow by addition of new initials at both ray margins and then split by the intrusive elongation of adjacent fusiform cells. The repetitive splits give rise to groups of several rays of common descent. Initially, the secondary rays are also nonstoried. Later, they become organized into horizontal tiers. This results from the vertical migration of ray initials in the vascular cambium. Controlled polar additions and eliminations of ray-cell initials at the opposite margins of the ray continue until it reaches the appropriate position within the storey of fusiform initials. We postulate that there are at least two mechanisms for the formation and maintenance of ray tiers in cambium. They are unrelated to cell inclination changes, which as described earlier, are known to sometimes induce a double-storied phenotype. The first of these mechanisms, involves initiation of secondary rays exactly within the storeys of fusiform initials, as in Hippophaë rhamnoides L. The second mechanism, present in A. turbinata, is based on the dynamic, controlled migration of rays.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207