MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203723741 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.736212

Leaf Morphogenesis: Insights From the Moss Physcomitrium patens

2021· review· en· W3203723741 on OpenAlexafffund
Wenye Lin, Ying Wang, Yoan Coudert, Daniel Kierzkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesFoundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMossBiologyLeafyBotanyMorphogenesisContext (archaeology)Plant evolutionPlant developmentBryophyteMorphology (biology)Zoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specialized photosynthetic organs have appeared several times independently during the evolution of land plants. Phyllids, the leaf-like organs of bryophytes such as mosses or leafy liverworts, display a simple morphology, with a small number of cells and cell types and lack typical vascular tissue which contrasts greatly with flowering plants. Despite this, the leaf structures of these two plant types share many morphological characteristics. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of leaf morphogenesis in the model moss Physcomitrium patens , focusing on the underlying cellular patterns and molecular regulatory mechanisms. We discuss this knowledge in an evolutionary context and identify parallels between moss and flowering plant leaf development. Finally, we propose potential research directions that may help to answer fundamental questions in plant development using moss leaves as a model system.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207