MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053116697 · doi:10.1139/b04-157

Anisophylly in<i>Aucuba japonica</i>(Cornaceae): An outcome of spatial crowding in the bud

2005· article· en· W2053116697 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Md. Sohrab Ali, Kihachiro Kikuzawa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsPrimordiumBiologyInflorescenceShootBudBotanyAxillary budPhyllotaxisLateral shootHorticultureExplant cultureMeristem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anisophylly in Aucuba japonica Thunb. occurs exclusively in axillary buds on shoots of individuals that have reached reproductive maturity; juvenile plants or sprouts and shoots from terminal vegetative buds on adult plants are isophyllous. The initially smaller leaf primordium in each anisophyllous leaf pair gives rise to the larger final leaf size. Immediately before bud break, the size of the initially smaller primordium is already almost twice as large as the initially larger primordium, and the size differential is further amplified following bud break. The degree of aniso phylly, however, varies among the nodes of a shoot, depending on leaf pair orientation (tangential or parallel to the inflorescence axis) and nodal position. Paired leaves approach isophylly when they originate tangential to an inflorescence but become anisophyllous when originating parallel to an inflorescence. The degree of anisophylly depends on crown light conditions through effects on terminal bud size and foliage distribution on the shoot, but ultimately appears to arise from space limitations and crowding between the leaf primordia and the developing inflorescence in terminal reproductive buds.Key words: Aucuba, anisophylly, bud internal morphology, developmental anatomy, developmental constraints.

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)0.001
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 score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207