MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110742286 · doi:10.3732/ajb.0800209

Is the anthophyte hypothesis alive and well? New evidence from the reproductive structures of Bennettitales

2009· article· en· W2110742286 on OpenAlexafffund
Gar W. Rothwell, William L. Crepet, Ruth A. Stockey

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyOvuleBotanyGynoeciumPollenFernSister groupPlant evolutionFlowering plantCladePhylogeneticsStamenGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bennettitales is an extinct group of seed plants with reproductive structures that are similar in some respects to both Gnetales and angiosperms, but systematic relationships among the three clades remain controversial. This study summarizes characters of bennettitalean plants and presents new evidence for the structure of cones and seeds that help clarify relationships of Bennettitales to flowering plants, Gnetales, and other potential angiosperm sister groups. Bennettitales have simple mono- or bisporangiate cones. Seeds are borne terminally on sporophylls. They have a unique structure that includes a nucellus with a solid apex, no pollen chamber, and a single integument, and they are clearly not enclosed by a cupule or other specialized structures. Such features differ substantially from Gnetales, flowering plants, and the seed fern Caytonia, providing no compelling evidence for the origin of the angiospermous carpel. Cladistic tests were performed to assess the strength of the "anthophyte hypothesis" and possible relationships of Bennettitales, Gnetales, and Caytonia to flowering plants. Our results do not support the anthophyte hypothesis for the origin of angiosperms by a transformation of fertile organs that were already aggregated into a cone or flower-like structure. However, the anthophyte topology of the seed plant tree continues to be supported by morphological analyses of living and extinct taxa.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations114
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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