MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205250546 · doi:10.1007/s12229-021-09271-1

Composition of Sexual Fluids in Cycas revoluta Ovules During Pollination and Fertilization

2022· article· en· W4205250546 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick von Aderkas, Stefan A. Little, Massimo Nepi, Massimo Guarnieri, Madeline Antony, Tokushiro Takaso

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Botanical Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Geology in Latin America and Caribbean
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of the RyukyusGenome British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsOvuleProteomePollinationBotanyBiologyHuman fertilizationPollenBiochemistryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. These were compared with the proteome of another sexual fluid produced by ovules, the pollination drop proteins. Cycad ovules produce complex liquids immediately prior fertilization. Compared with the pollination drops that mainly had few proteins in classes involved in defense and carbohydrate modification, megagametophyte fluid and archegonial chamber fluid had larger proteomes with many more protein classes, e.g. proteins involved in programmed cell death. Using high-performance liquid chromatography, megagametophyte fluid and archegonial chamber fluid were shown to have elevated concentrations of smaller molecular weight molecules including glucose, pectin and glutamic acid. Compared to megagametophyte fluid, archegonial chamber fluid had elevated pH as well as higher osmolality. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12229-021-09271-1.

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 score0.004

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Botanical ReviewSame topicBotany and Geology in Latin America and CaribbeanFrench-language works237,207