Comparative anatomy of the fig wall (<i>Ficus</i>, Moraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genus Ficus is unique in that it has a closed inflorescence (fig) holding all of the flowers inside its cavity, which is isolated from the outside world by a fleshy barrier: the fig wall. The fig wall is the main structure of the fig, giving its shape, but the wall has also important ecological functions such as protection of fig seeds and fig wasp larvae. Nevertheless, the fig wall anatomy is poorly understood. This study aims to examine the fig wall anatomy of 22 Ficus taxa (21 species, one species having two varieties) in Taiwan to reveal the diversity in anatomy of the fig wall. We found that these 21 fig species exhibited a great variety in fig wall anatomy, from the simplest parenchymatic wall to complex fig walls. The walls of the figs from 12 sampled taxa developed aerenchyma and sclerenchyma formations whereas seven taxa had fig walls containing tanniferous cells. Five anatomical types of fig walls have been identified according to the presence or absence of the different differentiated tissues. These types are distributed among the Ficus subgenera. Further studies on tissue differentiations of the fig wall should be investigated in other Ficus species as well as the ecological functions of the fig wall.
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 | 0.001 | 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".