MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165350733 · doi:10.1139/b10-031

Comparative analysis of hypocotyl development in epiphytic, lignotuber-forming, and terrestrial Vaccinieae (Ericaceae)

2010· article· en· W2165350733 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Rodger C. Evans, S. P. Vander Kloet

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsXylemHypocotylBiologyEricaceaeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparative analysis of hypocotyl development was undertaken with seedlings of three Vaccinieae (Ericaceae) species ( Macleania pentaptera Hoerold, Macleania rupestris (Kunth) A.C. Sm., and Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) to determine the developmental basis for enlarged hypocotyls leading to the development of woody tubers (lignotubers) in M. pentaptera and M. rupestris. Differences in hypocotyl development are apparent after the first true leaves are visible in each species. Vascular tissue in M. rupestris and V. angustifolium is composed primarily of axial columns of secondary xylem. Secondary xylem tissues in M. pentaptera remain mostly parenchymatous and form radial columns of cells through numerous periclinal divisions. Furthermore, the secondary xylem of M. pentaptera comprises random networks of interconnected, small xylem elements in comparison with the secondary xylem of M. rupestris and V. angustifolium. These differences in hypocotyl development persist through the first 200 d of hypocotyl development, and ultimately lead to the development of a large lignotuber in M. pentaptera. Given the large amounts of parenchymatous tissue, a secondary xylem of relatively short secondary xylem elements, and the absence of adventitious buds, we propose that the lignotubers of M. pentaptera are used for short term water storage, rather than regeneration.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207