MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280732299 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2015-0236

Foliar colleters in Anacardiaceae: first report for the family

2016· article· en· W2280732299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrichomeAnacardiaceaeSapindaceaeMalpighiaceaeSterculiaceaeFagaceaeOleaPlant anatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colleters are secretory structures widely distributed in eudicots and with taxonomic value in many families. Although glandular trichomes have been described in some Anacardiaceae species, the chemical characterization of their secretions is scarce and to date there are no reports on colleters. Light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy were used to study the distribution and structure of colleters on the vegetative buds of Anacardium humile A.St.-Hil., Lithraea molleoides (Vell.) Engl., Spondias dulcis Parkinson, and Tapirira guianensis Aubl., and to characterize their secretory products histochemically. In all of these Anacardiaceae species, colleters are multicellular and multiseriate ovoid or club-shaped glandular trichomes of protodermic origin, present on both surfaces of leaf primordia. They reach the secretory phase at early stages of leaf development, after which they gradually degenerate, become brown, and fall off. Histochemical tests indicate that the secretion within the glandular cells and outside the trichomes is a complex mixture containing mucilage, fatty acids, and phenolic compounds, which are secretory products that can play an important role in the protection of meristems against desiccation and attack by pathogens. Therefore, the distribution of these glandular trichomes, their short-life, the chemical nature of their secretions and their presumed functions support their being classified as colleters.

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 score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207