MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293735071 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0019

Floral organogenesis in <i>Dysosma versipellis</i> (Berberidaceae) and its systematic implications

2016· article· en· W2293735071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liang Zhao, Julien Bachelier, Xiaohui Zhang, Yi Ren

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Berberidaceae and the six other families of Ranunculales form a sister clade to all other eudicots, and are crucial to reconstructing the common ancestor of flowering plants. Previous studies have suggested that the petals of most Berberidaceae are derived from stamens, and some are thought to develop petals from common petal/stamen primordia. However, the flower ontogeny is still poorly known in the family and the presence of common primordia needs to be re-evaluated from a comparative developmental perspective. Here, we used scanning electron microscopy to study the floral development of the endemic Chinese species Dysosma versipellis (Hance) M. Cheng ex Ying, which was originally placed in Podophyllum. Our results show that the floral organs are all free and the sepals, petals, and stamens are initiated centripetally in successive and alternate trimerous pairs of whorls around a single carpel. The nectarless petals are initiated separately and do not develop from common primordia with the stamens. Floral and developmental features of D. versipellis are similar to those of most members of Berberidaceae. The regular development of multiple flowers and absence of a secondary increase in the number of stamens in Dysosma support its exclusion from Podophyllum, and this is also inferred by the DNA sequence data.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207