MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152523096 · doi:10.1139/b99-105

Studies in the Alismataceae. X. Floral organogenesis in <i>Luronium natans</i> (L.) Raf.

2000· article· en· W2152523096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. A. Charlton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepalPrimordiumGynoeciumStamenPetalBiologyApex (geometry)BotanyOrganogenesisPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floral organogenesis of Luronium natans (L.) Raf. occurs at first in an alternating trimerous pattern typical of Alismataceae, with the formation of three sepals, then three bulges, corresponding to the petal-stamen primordia described in some other Alismataceae, alternating with the sepals. A petal is initiated on each bulge and a pair of stamens is initiated either on it or close to it. After this, development no longer follows a trimerous plan. Six carpels are initiated in positions alternating with the six stamens, and further carpels may then arise above and between the first six. The carpels ultimately lie in a whorled arrangement if there are only six; if more, they may appear whorled or irregularly arranged. After the initiation of the stamen pairs, floral organ primordia appear simply to be positioned between pre-existing primordia as in other phyllotactic systems. It is suggested that the number of carpel primordia formed is probably determined by the size of primordia relative to the floral apex, and the extent of continued growth of the floral apex. Luronium reinforces the concept that a form of trimery is fundamental for the Alismataceae up to the formation of three stamen pairs and adds to the possibilities for variation after this point. It is suggested for the Alismataceae in general that, according to taxon, trimerous development may be terminated at any point after the initiation of the stamen pairs, and after this the primordia are positioned individually in relation to pre-existing primordia. The switch from stamen to carpel initiation is not necessarily correlated with these phyllotactic changes.

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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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