MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943660154 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2018-0192

Comparative anatomy of the fig wall (<i>Ficus</i>, Moraceae)

2019· article· en· W2943660154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kang-Yu Fan, Anthony Bain, Hsy‐Yu Tzeng, Yun-Peng Chiang, Lien‐Siang Chou, Ling‐Long Kuo‐Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to water stress
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFicusBiologyMoraceaeSubgenusReceptacleInflorescenceBotanyAnatomyGenusApex (geometry)Lateral wallBractComparative anatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant responses to water stressFrench-language works237,207