Revisiting the histological patterns of storage tissues: beyond the limits of gall-inducing taxa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gall-inducing Aphididae may feed directly on phloem, whereas Eriophyidae and Nematoda feed on cells lining the gall chambers. We assume that a variation in structural complexity will occur within galls induced by each taxon, and that the complexity of the galls could be related to the types of storage tissue they have. Histological, histometric, and histochemical analyses were used to compare six gall systems with different levels of complexity. Such levels are not taxon-related, even though eriophyid galls are usually simpler than nematode and aphid galls. The histological features of galls allowed the classification of storage tissues into three types: typical nutritive tissues (TNT), common storage tissues (CST), and nutritive-like tissues (NLT). The TNT and NLT have cells with dense cytoplasm and a prominent nucleus. The CST cells are vacuolated, and may store starch and other energy-rich molecules, as do the NLT cells. In contrast to NLT or CST, the TNT serves as a direct food source for gall inducers, and it is present in nematode and some eriophyid galls. NLTs may be present in some aphid galls, but are not the direct feeding site. The CST occurs on galls of all three inducing taxa.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it