MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735684929 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0034

Structural differences in the secondary phloem suggest higher support and storage potential in stems than roots of <i>Cytharexylum myrianthum</i> Cham. (Verbenaceae)

2017· article· en· W2735684929 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paula Cristina Benetton Vergílio, Jane Rodrigues da Silva, Marcela Blagitz, Leandro Roberto Longo, Carmen Regina Marcati

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Estadual PaulistaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsPhloemBiologyVerbenaceaeBotanySecondary growthXylem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stems and roots are interconnected by their secondary phloem, a complex tissue that exhibits functional differences related to the anatomical structure of each organ. Here, we compared the structure of secondary phloem in mature stems and roots of Citharexylum myrianthum Cham. (Verbenaceae). We sampled the main stems at a height of 1.3 m and the roots at a depth of 0.5 m. We described both the qualitative and quantitative features of all secondary phloem cell types, and compared the quantitative features using a paired Student’s t test. The same percentage of sieve tubes in the conducting phloem between the organs indicates a similar conducting efficiency between stem and roots, even though sieve tubes have wider diameters in the stems. Overall, stems had a higher portion of nonconducting secondary phloem than the roots, with a higher number of both parenchyma and sclerenchyma bands, likely indicating a higher storage and support potential of the phloem in stems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207