Comparative development of simple and compound leaves in the genus <i>Cecropia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants develop leaves that range from simple to compound in shape. The evolutionary divergence of simple and compound leaves has spurred research into identifying the cellular and molecular processes involved in determining leaf shape. The roles of various genes and signalling pathways have been characterized in specifying leaf shape; however, few studies have investigated leaf primordium structure and shoot apex organization throughout the development of both simple and compound leaves. Using Cecropia obtusa Trécul and Cecropia sciadophylla Martius, two putatively closely related species bearing simple palmate and palmately-compound leaves, respectively, we compared the morphogenesis of leaves of both species at the shoot apex. Analysis of shoot apices using scanning electron microscopy yielded a nonsignificant difference in leaf primordium divergence angles and plastochron ratios, suggesting that divergence of the two leaf types occurred independently of primordium organization and growth rate at the shoot apex. Qualitative analysis of primordium initiation and morphogenesis revealed that both species share highly homologous development, as primordium structure and lobe/leaflet initiation sites are complementary in both leaf types. Our observations suggest a high degree of conserved ontogeny in the developmental pathways underlying the morphogenesis of simple palmate and palmately-compound leaves in these two species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".