MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521046770 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0025

<i>Stockeystrobus</i> gen. nov. (Cupressaceae), and the evolutionary diversification of sequoioid conifer seed cones

2016· article· en· W2521046770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gar W. Rothwell, Tamiko Ohana

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityKanazawa UniversityNational Museum of Nature and ScienceMichigan State UniversityChuo University
KeywordsBractBiologyCupressaceaeOvuleBotanyCretaceousApex (geometry)PollinationPollenPaleontologyInflorescence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An anatomically preserved seed cone from Late Cretaceous (Santonian–Coniacian) sediments of the Yezo Group on the Japanese Island of Hokkaido documents additional diversity among sequoioid conifers, and reveals previously unknown mechanisms for pollination and post-pollination seed enclosure in the conifer family Cupressaceae. The cylindrical seed cone of Stockeystrobus interdigitata gen. et sp. nov., consists of a central axis bearing helically arranged bract–scale complexes. Individual complexes are tightly packed and peltate in form, with completely fused bracts and scales. Peltate heads of adjacent complexes are attached to each other by elongated interdigitating epidermal trichomes. Each complex bears 6–8 inverted seeds on the adaxial surface of the inside of the peltate bract–scale complex head. Seeds occur in a single row, are roughly disk shaped, with broad wings in the major plane of symmetry. The nucellus is attached to the seed integument at the chalaza and free distally, with a convoluted apex. This cone reveals greater diversity of sequoioid reproductive biology than is represented among living species, and demonstrates that completely enclosed cones with well protected seeds were produced by Late Cretaceous fossil conifers of the Cupressaceae.

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 score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207