MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158140369 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a001511

Control of Leaf and Vein Development by Auxin

2009· review· en· W2158140369 on OpenAlexafffund
Enrico Scarpella, Michalis Barkoulas, Miltos Tsiantis

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBiologyAuxinMorphogenesisRegulatorKey (lock)BotanyVascular networkCell biologyAnatomyVascular tissueNeuroscienceEcologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leaves are the main photosynthetic organs of vascular plants and show considerable diversity in their geometries, ranging from simple spoon-like forms to complex shapes with individual leaflets, as in compound leaves. Leaf vascular tissues, which act as conduits of both nutrients and signaling information, are organized in networks of different architectures that usually mirror the surrounding leaf shape. Understanding the processes that endow leaves and vein networks with ordered and closely aligned shapes has captured the attention of biologists and mathematicians since antiquity. Recent work has suggested that the growth regulator auxin has a key role in both initiation and elaboration of final morphology of both leaves and vascular networks. A key feature of auxin action is the existence of feedback loops through which auxin regulates its own transport. These feedbacks may facilitate the iterative generation of basic modules that underlies morphogenesis of both leaves and vasculature.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations264
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in BiologySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207