Leaf development in <i>Aralia elata</i> in relation to the partial-shoot concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aralia elata (Miq.) Seem. has large bipinnate leaves in which the rachis bears pairs of leaflets in the distal region and pairs of rachillae bearing leaflets in the proximal region. A supernumerary leaflet is also inserted on the rachis adjacent to each rachilla. The rachilla and supernumerary leaflet could perhaps represent an axillary/axillant relationship, in which case the whole leaf would have a notable similarity to a shoot system, and could lend itself to interpretation as a partial shoot system. The development of the leaf has been examined with this in mind. The supernumerary leaflets arise separately from, and later than the rachillae with which they are associated. It is concluded from this and other evidence, for instance the orientation of the plane of dorsiventrality of leaf components, that the resemblance of the leaf to a shoot system is coincidental. However the leaf can be interpreted along lines suggested by classical morphology as an example of a palmate-pinnate leaf, with the addition of reiteration of the palmate element at each cycle of initiation of supernumerary leaflets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".