Significance of Wood Anatomical Features to the Taxonomy of Five Cola Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p>Wood anatomy of five <em>Cola</em> species was investigated to identify and describe anatomical features in search of distinctive characters that could possibly be used in the resolution of their taxonomy. Transverse, tangential and radial longitudinal sections and macerated samples were prepared into microscopic slides. Characteristic similarity and disparity in the tissues arrangement as well as cell inclusions were noted for description and delimitation. All the five <em>Cola</em> species studied had essentially the same anatomical features, but the difficulty posed by the identification of <em>Cola acuminata </em>and <em>Cola nitida</em> when not in fruit could be resolved using anatomical features. <em>Cola acuminata</em> have extensive fibre and numerous crystals relative to <em>Cola nitida</em>,<em> </em>while<em> Cola hispida </em>and <em>Cola millenii</em> are the only species having monohydric crystals. <em>Cola gigantica </em>is the only species that have few xylem fibres while other species have extensive xylem fibre. These features have proved very functional and strongly of diagnostic value in the classification and delimitation of the studied <em>Cola </em>species.</p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".