MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053010601 · doi:10.1080/21580103.2008.9656332

Flavonoids chemistry of the<i>adonis amurensis</i>complex in eastern Asia

2008· article· en· W2053010601 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chin‐Sung Chang, Jeong Ill Jeon, Hui Kim, Sang Tae Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Science and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Forest ServiceSeoul National UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsFlavonoidBotanyConfusionChemistryGlycosideBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flavonoids were isolated and identified from flowers and/or leaves of the Adonis amurensis complex. This complex has been a persistent source of taxonomic confusion due to the exclusive use of continuous variation in flower morphology for species definition and recognition. Nineteen flavonoids, including C‐glycosylflavones, O‐glycosylflavones, and flavonol O‐glycosides were characterized. The flavonoids isolated from flowers and leaves of the A. amurensis complex were not the same. The phenogram indicated three major clusters; A. multiflora, A. ramosa‐A. pseudoamurensis, and A. amurensis. A. amurensis was characterized by a higher flavonoid diversity composed of a variety of C‐glycosylflavones, while A. multiflora was generally characterized by a reduced flavonoid profiles. It is probable that evolutionary advancement is reflected in loss of some of C‐glycosylflavone and all of O‐glycosylflavone synthesis, resulting in A. multiflora within this series. The present study has demonstrated that the flavonoid chemistry may indeed be as variable as the morphological features, and no significant flavonoid differences at the species level were observed. It was suggested that parallel and/or radiate modes of evolution could have taken place within this complex.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Science and TechnologySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207