Plant meristems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perspective of history can be helpful if it sheds light on the ideas that underpin current research. In this paper we trace the development of thinking about plant meristems, from Caspar Wolff in 1759 to the present day. We explore the issues with which successive investigators have been concerned: the cytologists studying the shoot meristem were pre-occupied by zonations, from the apical cell of Nageli to the meristeme d'attente of the French School; while the morphologists moved reluctantly from the finished picture (the observed phyllotactic pattern) to its dynamic origin. In the root, the quiescent centre has long been the focus of attention; the recent confluence of thinking about shoot and root meristems is therefore of considerable interest. Developmental genetics, in discovering common gene functions and physiological regulation, has tended to diminish the differences that were previously emphasized. In reviewing the subject of meristems in this way, it is hard not to be impressed by the strong influence of context, the ideas of the moment. It thus becomes of special interest to examine the background to current approaches, which in turn leads to a consideration of the origin and validity of many of the (strongly conceptual) notions now in vogue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".