MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311937018 · doi:10.5539/jps.v12n1p12

Xylem Development and Xylem Conductivity of Furrowed Xylem in Stem Terminals of Five Species of Aristolochia (Aristolochiaceae)

2022· article· en· W4311937018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lance S. Evans, Maya Carvalho-Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNephrotoxicity and Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylemAristolochiaBiologyBotanyWater transportVascular tissueWater flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xylem cells are responsible for water transport and mechanical support in most plants. Since vines depend upon other plants for mechanical support, the main responsibility of xylem cells in vines is primarily water transport and not mechanical support. The purpose of the current study was to study xylem characteristics in stems of five species of Aristolochia. Tissue samples from about 1.0 to 5.5 mm in diameter were processed with standard histological techniques. Anatomical characteristics were similar among all five species. Results show: (1) interfascicular cambia were not present, so stems had only furrowed xylem, (2) numbers of vascular bundles in stems were specific for each species and did not increase as stems enlarged, (3) radii of vessels were not dimorphic for any species, (4) numbers of vessels were linearly related with stem diameters, and (5) the largest half of all vessels supplied 95% of total xylem conductivity. To our knowledge, this is the first publication to document the development of furrowed xylem, describing both vessel characteristics and xylem conductivities in stems of Aristolochia species.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicNephrotoxicity and Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207