MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of Symmetric and Asymmetric Division Planes in Plant Cells

2011· review· en· W2168677206 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carolyn G. Rasmussen, John Humphries, Laurie G. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Plant Biology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsPhragmoplastCell divisionCell biologyCytokinesisCell plateAsymmetric cell divisionBiologyCytoskeletonDivision (mathematics)Cell polarityMetaphaseBiophysicsCellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cellular organization of plant tissues is determined by patterns of cell division and growth coupled with cellular differentiation. Cells proliferate mainly via symmetric division, whereas asymmetric divisions are associated with initiation of new developmental patterns and cell types. Division planes in both symmetrically and asymmetrically dividing cells are established through the action of a cortical preprophase band (PPB) of cytoskeletal filaments, which is disassembled upon transition to metaphase, leaving behind a cortical division site (CDS) to which the cytokinetic phragmoplast is later guided to position the cell plate. Recent progress has been made in understanding PPB formation and function as well as the nature and function of the CDS. In asymmetrically dividing cells, division plane establishment is governed by cell polarity. Recent work is beginning to shed light on polarization mechanisms in asymmetrically dividing cells, with receptor-like proteins and potential downstream effectors emerging as important players in this process.

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)0.001
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations118
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Plant BiologySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207