MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205303828 · doi:10.3390/sym14020184

The Search for Geometrical Parameters That Represent the Dynamic Nature of Phyllotaxis in Plants

2022· article· en· W4205303828 on OpenAlexafffund
Denis Barabé, Christian Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueSymmetry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhyllotaxisPrimordiumBegoniaMeristemBoundary (topology)BotanyBiologyMathematicsComputer scienceShootMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shoot apical meristem (SAM) is the main growth centre that produces lateral organs such as leaves in specific and precise symmetrical patterns. The main goal of this commentary is to explore the link between phyllotactic parameters such as the plastochrone ratio (R) as well as Γ (relationship between the size of the SAM and the size of primordia) and growth processes involved in the expression of symmetrical patterns at the level of the SAM. It is also possible to deduce the values of these parameters from measures of the apical area and the radius of the SAM. A comparative analysis of phyllotactic parameters for three species (Begonia scabrida, Euterpe oleracea, and Anagallis arvensis) for which ‘dynamic’ data are available reveals that empirical and theoretical values of R and Γ can differ, indicating that characters defining these parameters are subject to developmental constraints that in turn determine the boundary conditions for the dynamic manifestation of phyllotactic patterns. One of the main challenges that remains is the ability to consistently and effectively observe the dynamic changes taking place at the SAM (in real time) over an extended period.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymmetrySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207