Bibliographic record
Abstract
LLILTM odorurn, a species with wide distribution in temperate AsiaA and often grown in botanic gardens, has been repeatedly investigated embryologically because of its antipodal embryos.Early investigators, SCHURHOFF and HABERLANDT, seem to have studied a diploid odorum-form (2n= 16), while most later workers have found their odorum-plants to be tetraploid (2n=32).The present authors have grown forms from some twenty botanic gardens, all these odorum-forms being tetraploid.The study of herbarium specimens shows, however, that Allium odorum includes morphologically widely diverse types, of which certainly only a few are at present available in botanic gardens.KURITA (1953) concludes from the somatic chromosome morphology and from the meiotic pairing that Allium odorum is an autotetraploid.Embryologic investigation into tetraploid forms (see MODILEWSKY, 1931 , H~KANSSON, 1951) ) have shown the embryos to be formed by parthenogenesis, while undoubtedly fertilization of the polar nuclei is necessary, no endosperm developing in emasculated flowers.The antipodals usually have the appearance of a second egg apparatus, antipodal eggs also developing parthenogenetically.The zygoid chromosome number is the rule in the embryo sacs, although, exceptionally, embryo sacs with reduced chromosome number are found.MODILEWSKY (1931) describes meiosis in pmc:s and emc:s.In the latter case he finds, on the one hand, a normal meiosis leading up to ))16 Gemini)) and, on the other hand, a deviating meiosis type leading to the double number of chromosomes.Although he refers to the process involved in this chromosome doubling with the misleading term ,Restitution)) and the nucleus resulting, ))Restitutionskerna, it is quite clear from his descriptions that he does not mean an ordinary restitution mechanism.He is speaking of Beine Restitution in dem praediakinetischen Stadium, (p.36), and in his Fig. 35 a first metaphase is represented with about 32 elements, 12 -Hereditns
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".