MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091997144 · doi:10.1139/b03-044

Comparative analysis of the sexual phase of<i>Phanerophlebia</i>(Dryopteridaceae) in Mexico

2003· article· en· W2091997144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aniceto Mendoza‐Ruiz, Blanca Pérez‐García

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGametophyteDryopteridaceaeBotanySporophyteBiologySporeSporangiumFernAntheridiumDryopterisGerminationGemmaPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparative analysis is presented of the spore morphology, germination pattern, and prothallial development of the sexual phase of seven species in the fern genus Phanerophlebia C. Presl. Gametophyte development was studied from samples grown both on agar and soil. Spores are monolete, ellipsoid, with light brown to dark brown perine; the germination pattern is Vittaria-type and the prothallial development is Aspidium-type in all of the species. The gametangia are of the type typical for leptosporangiate ferns. Gametophytes of all species initially become female, then bisexual. Differences among species include spore germination time (6–12 days), shape of the gametophytes (spatulate–cordiform to cordiform–reniform, with smooth to very irregular margins), development time of trichomes (12–24 days), and appearance of gametangia (40–200 days). Some species develop the first leaves of the sporophytes after 200 days. Results are contrasted with previously published reports on gametophyte development in Arachniodes Blume, Cyrtomium C. Presl, Didymochlaena Desv., Dryopteris Adans, Olfersia Raddi, Polystichum Roth, and Stigmatopteris C. Chr.Key words: Dryopteridaceae, fern gametophyte, Mexico, morphogenesis, Phanerophlebia, sexual phase.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207