MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077308728 · doi:10.1007/s10570-014-0382-4

Isolation and handedness of helical coiled cellulosic thickenings from plant petiole tracheary elements

2014· article· en· W2077308728 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek G. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueCellulose · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFPInnovations
KeywordsBotanyPetiole (insect anatomy)CelluloseVascular bundleHemicelluloseSugarXyloseBiologyChemistryMaterials scienceLigninFermentationBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaf stalks (petioles) are critical components of the vascular system that conducts water from the roots to the photosynthetic apparatus of most green plants. Helical coiled cellulosic microfibrils that reinforce the tracheary elements in plant leaf petioles were isolated by a gentle treatment with alkali and acid chlorite from celery and from a number of tree species, including sugar maple, London plane, horse chestnut, tulip tree, paulownia and ginko. Analysis of the hydrolysate of celery coils gave glucose as the main product, but significant quantities of xylose and other sugars were also detected. Polarized light microscopy was used to determine the location, dimensions and handedness of the coils. The coils were made up of single or multiple parallel strands in contact, ranging up to 35 μm in diameter and several cm in length. The strand structure was chiral; significantly, only left-handed helices were observed. An attempt is made to rationalize the left-handed structure by comparison with the spontaneous handedness observed in vitro for cellulose nanocrystals suspensions. The ubiquitous presence of coiled thickenings in petiole vascular elements indicates their importance in plant functions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCelluloseSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207