MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060689970 · doi:10.1139/b08-098

Morphology and evolution of epiphytic Davalliaceae scales

2008· article· en· W2060689970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chie Tsutsumi, Masahiro Kato

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpiphyteBiologyObligatePolypodiaceaeBotanyTrichomeDesiccationLineage (genetic)Biological dispersalEcologyFernPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scales of most members of the Davalliaceae and related epiphytic, secondary-hemiepiphytic, and climbing ferns consist of a stalk and a shield, are dense, and are persistent on the long-creeping rhizomes. They differ from the sessile, mostly deciduous scales of the related terrestrial eupolypod ferns. The stalked scales first developed two-dimensionally and later produced the proximal part of the shield from near the base to comprise a peltate or pseudopeltate shield on a stalk. Anatomical observations showed variations in the cellular and histological features and the degree of stalk insertion into a rhizome concavity. A character-phylogenetic tree of scales suggested an evolutionary linkage between the stalked scale and the epiphytic life form in the lineage leading to Davalliaceae and Polypodiaceae. The elaborated scales of most species of the obligate-epiphytic Davalliaceae were similar to the sunken-stalked, peltate, absorbing, epiphyllous trichomes of some angiosperm epiphytes. These results suggest that the stalked scales may have significant roles such as protection against desiccation, external water storage, and absorption of water and nutrients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207