MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108233633 · doi:10.2307/2657097

Compound pollen cone in a Paleozoic conifer

2001· article· en· W2108233633 on OpenAlexaff
Genaro R. Hernandez‐Castillo, Gar W. Rothwell, Gene Mapes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBractBiologyPollenBotanyGenusPennsylvanianPaleozoicLeafyPaleobotanyCupressaceaePaleontologyInflorescencePlant development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rich fossil biota from a Pennsylvanian age deposit of eastern North America contains numerous vegetative and fertile specimens that conform to a single species of primitive walchian conifers. Among the specimens is a compound pollen cone that comprises closely spaced, helically arranged, leaf-like bracts with axillary dwarf shoots. The specimen looks superficially similar to an ultimate vegetative conifer shoot, but there are small appendages in the axil of each bract that represent the fertile dwarf shoots. Dwarf shoots consist of an axis that bears sterile scales and sporophylls with erect pollen sacs. Pollen found in the sacs is monosaccate and conforms to the sporae dispersae genus Potonieisporites Bhardwaj. This cone is a compound shoot system that is morphologically equivalent to the ovulate cones of conifers and to the pollen cones of Paleozoic cordaitaleans and modern gnetophytes. Therefore, it is fundamentally different from the simple pollen cones of other fossil and modern conifers. Discovery of this specimen unexpectedly supports molecular studies that predict a close relationship between Coniferales and Gnetales, and provides fossil evidence to help reconcile the discordant phylogenetic hypotheses of seed plant systematics that have been developed from morphological and molecular data.

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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207