MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509506629 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0136

Comparison of synandrium structure and development in three species from the Myristicaceae

2016· article· en· W2509506629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guifang Yang, Fengxia Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsStamenBiologyWhorl (mollusc)PrimordiumBotanyVascular bundleReceptaclePollenGenusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species of Myristicaceae have diverse morphology and structure of their synandria, making them an interesting group for androecium evolution research. To clarify the morphology, structure, and origin of the synandrium, scanning electron microscopy and histology were performed on staminate flowers of Horsfieldia pandurifolia H.H.Hu, H. tetratepala C.Y.Wu & W.T.Wang, and Myristica fragrans Houtt. at different developmental stages. A whorl of stamen primordia was rapidly initiated around the margin of the floral apex in groups of two in H. pandurifolia and groups of three in M. fragrans. Each stamen primordium grew longitudinally, producing a pair of anther lobes and four microsporangia, accompanying one vascular bundle in H. pandurifolia and M. fragrans. In H. tetratepala, three stamen primordia groups were formed, and each group with several anthers was supported by one vascular bundle, indicating a secondary increase of stamen. Three types of synandrium origin were observed: in M. fragrans, the central sterile column tissues originated from the elongate receptacle; in H. pandurifolia and H. tetratepala they were derived from a combination of floral meristem and fused connectives, and a combination of receptacular tissue and stamen groups. The diverse origins of the central sterile column suggest that the synandrium develops differently and independently in different genera and species of Myristicaceae.

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 score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207