MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155027845 · doi:10.1139/b10-070

Procambium–cambium transition during vascular meristem development in<i>Diospyros lotus</i>

2010· article· en· W2155027845 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elżbieta Myśkow

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCambiumVascular cambiumMeristemBiologyBotanyLotusXylem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trees owe their growth in girth to cambial activity that gives rise to secondary conducting tissues. Since cambium originates from the primary vascular meristem, called procambium, the main objective of the present study was to analyse the changes occurring during transition from procambium to cambium in Diospyros lotus L., characterized by the occurrence of double-storied cambium. In this species, procambium and primary vascular tissues are present only within the bud, whereas just below this level, cambium and secondary vascular tissues occur. Procambium differentiates as a continuous cylinder, which as a whole transforms into cambium during further development. Commonly used criteria distinguishing procambium and cambium — that is, the appearance of periclinal divisions, intrusive growth of meristematic cells, presence of rays, and primary versus secondary nature of derived vascular tissues — were analysed in D. lotus. All these features, however, were present in procambium, making the sharp distinction between both stages of vascular meristem based on these criteria difficult. In addition, the formation of fusiform and ray initial storeys in D. lotus was shown to appear in the third year of cambium activity and become more distinct with cambium age. The double-storied structure may result from the genetic control of cell fate and (or) the presence of epigenetic patterns determining cellular arrangement.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207