MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077968160 · doi:10.1139/b05-079

Microsporogenesis in<i>Amelanchier alnifolia</i>: sporogenous cells, microsporocytes, and tetrads

2005· article· en· W2077968160 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael Sumner, William R. Remphrey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrosporeTetradCalloseBotanyBiologyPollenCell wallCell biologyMeiosisGolgi apparatusStamenBiochemistryGeneEndoplasmic reticulum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of an overall program aimed at increasing our knowledge of the male reproductive system of Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt., this study documents structural and developmental changes that occur in the sporogenous cells, microsporocytes, and tetrads of microspores during microsporogenesis using general cytochemical techniques in conjunction with bright field, fluorescence, and transmission electron microscopy. The sporogenous cells are thin walled and stain positively for β-1,4-glucans, pectic acids, and cellulose, but not callose. At the microsporocyte and tetrad stages of microsporogenesis, thick walls develop and stain positively for β-1,4-glucans (hemicelluloses but not cellulose), pectic acids, and callose. Thus, the eventual release of maturing microspores from the tetrads requires the digestion of all three of these carbohydrate wall materials. Postmeiotic cytokinesis is of the simultaneous type and is initiated when Golgi vesicles aggregate simultaneously into a network of cylindrical tubules in both central and peripheral cell locations of the coenocytic tetrad. Eventually, this network fuses to form the new cell walls within the microspore tetrad.

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)0.000
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 score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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