MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W21652420 · doi:10.3732/ajb.92.3.438

Normas procesales civiles-vis atractiva de los juzgados de violencia sobre la mujer

2006· article· en· W21652420 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Inmaculada Montalbán Huertas

Bibliographic record

VenueEstudios jurídicos · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Penology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In monocarpic plants, reproduction is closely associated with senescence, which is itself often correlated to specific environmental signals. Floerkea proserpinacoides (Limnanthaceae) is a spring ephemeral annual of the deciduous forests of eastern North America. The phenology of its growth and reproduction is considered to be a specific adaptation to the short period during which there is a high availability of resources (mostly light). Indeed, flowering starts 2-3 wk following seedling emergence soon after snowmelt and continues until tree canopy closure. However, fruit maturation is postponed for several weeks and is followed by the plant's death. The objective of this study is to determine if senescence in F. proserpinacoides is primarily cued by fruit maturation or deteriorating light conditions associated with tree canopy closure. Plants for which reproductive investment was manipulated by removing their carpels were grown either in full light or in the shade. Carpel-removal plants reached a higher biomass than control plants (46.0- 57.5% higher), especially in full light. However, longevity was greater in carpel-removal plants, particularly in the shade (25.3-37.8% greater). These results thus suggest that fruit maturation, not deteriorating light conditions associated with canopy closure, is the primary cue of plant senescence in F. proserpinacoides.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEstudios jurídicosSame topicCriminal Justice and PenologyFrench-language works237,207