Complex tendril branching in two species of<i>Parthenocissus</i>: implications for the vitaceous shoot architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the developmental morphology of Parthenocissus quinquefolia Planch. (L.) (Virginia creeper) with that of Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Sieb. & Zucc.) Planch. (Boston ivy) to better understand how the tendril is related to the main shoot architecture of the Vitaceae. Tendril development is looked at from inception to maturity using scanning electron microscopy and epi-illumination microscopy. A tendril primordium is initiated low on the periphery of a shoot apical meristem; this pattern of development is reminiscent of typical monopodial shoot development. A tendril "shoot" in turn produces several bract-opposed branches and resembles the main shoot in its early development. However, a tendril develops through lateral growth, and because it lacks lateral buds, its architecture appears more sympodial than the main shoot. As more tendril branches are produced, the tendril "shoot" pattern of development gradually changes to a pattern of development reported in other vitaceous tendrils. This shift in development suggests how other vitaceous tendrils may be related to the shoot. Because tendril development in Parthenocissus can be demonstrated to be sympodial, it lends evidence to the idea that the unique monopodial-like system in members of the Vitaceae may be derived. The main shoot and tendril development are more similar than has previously been shown.Key words: Vitaceae, Parthenocissus, monopodial, sympodial, tendril, development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".