MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abortive seed development in Ulmus minor (Ulmaceae)

2004· article· en· W2091299858 on OpenAlexafffund
Juan Carlos López-Almansa, Edward C. Yeung, Luis Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanical Journal of the Linnean Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte
KeywordsEndospermBiologyEmbryoBotanyGerminationRadicleDesiccationUlmaceaeCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three genotypes of field elm (Ulmus minor) were studied to determine the structural basis of seed abortion in this species. In the non-abortive control, P-VV1, the pattern of seed development is similar to many flowering plants. The embryo progresses through defined morphological stages leading to developmental arrest as the seed matures. Storage products are abundant within embryo cells. Endosperm development is similar to the nuclear type; however, a more extensive cellularization of the endosperm occurs prior to it being crushed by the expanding embryo. For the abortive genotypes, M-SF1 and V-JR1, abnormalities in endosperm development are found. This is judged by the early cellularization and the massive synthesis of the PAS-positive material in the cellular endosperm. In these abortive genotypes, embryo development is delayed and storage products failed to accumulate within embryo cells. After seed desiccation, no living embryo tissue remains within the seed coat in the abortive genotypes.

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanical Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207