MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140181116 · doi:10.4033/iee.2014.17.c

Defining clonality and individuals in plant evolution

2014· article· en· W2140181116 on OpenAlex
Root Gorelick

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueIdeas in Ecology and Evolution · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApomixisBiologySteleVariance (accounting)MeiosisRoot (linguistics)Evolutionary biologyBotanyPloidyGeneticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aarssen (2014) proposes estimating fitness in clonal and aclonal seed plants by defining an individual as a rooted-unit, which he defines by the root-to-shoot transition in anatomy of the stele. This approach may be helpful for some seed plant taxa, maybe even most seed plants, because of being much more readily operational than most other definitions of individuals. However, the rooted-unit approach seems to falter for many weird plants, such as those with anomalous root and shoot anatomy and plants that can reproduce clonally from leaves or apomictic seeds. Another problem with using rooted-units to circumscribe individuals is the implicit assumption that mitosis constrains genetic variance and meiosis increases genetic variance, when the exact opposite may be true. Although definitions of individuals are arbitrary, there may soon be sufficient data to ascertain which definitions are most useful, i.e. which definitions of individuals help unify evolutionary theory.

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.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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