MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135916833 · doi:10.2985/026.019.0103

Axillary Branching of Lateral Cephalia in Cactaceae is Not Constrained by Tilting of Shoot Apices

2014· article· en· W2135916833 on OpenAlexafffund
Root Gorelick

Bibliographic record

VenueHaseltonia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBranching (polymer chemistry)Axillary budBiologyShootLateral shootSynonym (taxonomy)BotanyGenusGeneticsChemistryTissue culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cephalia occasionally have axillary branching in all three tribes of South American cephaliumbearing cacti. I document axillary branching of the cephalium of Espostoa ritteri (synonym: E. lanata), as well as provide three arguments for why axillary branching of cephalia should not be constrained by the physics of having a massive leaning lateral shoot.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaseltoniaSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207