Quantitative developmental analysis of two phenotypes of <i>Hibiscus rosa-sinensis</i> in the context of homeosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flowers of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. (Malvaceae) exist in two floral morphologies: a single phenotype, and a double phenotype. This study focused on the early stages of floral development, just before the initiation of petal primordia and up until the bifurcation of the stamen primordia. The two phenotypes were compared using logistic regression and bootstrapping techniques. Four aspects of floral development were considered: (i) organogenesis of petal and stamen primordia, and stamen bifurcation; (ii) allometry of stamen primordia; (iii) morphology of stamen primordia; and (iv) size of stamen primordia. The single and double buds initiated petal primordia at the same bud radii, but double buds initiated stamen primordia and stamen bifurcation at larger bud radii than the single phenotype. Double stamen primordia were shorter, wider, and more spherical than single stamen primordia, although the sizes of the single and double stamen primordia (defined as the sum of their length and width measurements) were not different. Results suggest that the additional space on the floral meristem of the double phenotype is linked to the divergent development of stamen primordia occupying this extra space.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".