Fundamentals of Plant Morphology and Plant Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Developmental Morphology)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological concepts are used in plant evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) and other disciplines of plant biology, and therefore plant morphology is relevant to all of these disciplines. Many plant biologists still rely on classical morphology, according to which there are only three mutually exclusive organ categories in vascular plants such as flowering plants: root, stem (caulome), and leaf (phyllome). Continuum morphology recognizes a continuum between these organ categories. Instead of Aristotelian identity and either/or logic, it is based on fuzzy logic, according to which membership in a category is a matter of degree. Hence, an organ in flowering plants may be a root, stem, or leaf to some degree. Homology then also becomes a matter of degree. Process morphology supersedes structure/process dualism. Hence, structures do not have processes, they are processes, which means they are process combinations. These process combinations may change during ontogeny and phylogeny. Although classical morphology on the one hand and continuum and process morphology on the other use different kinds of logic, they can be considered complementary and thus together they present a more inclusive picture of the diversity of plant form than any one of the three alone. However, continuum and process morphology are more comprehensive than classical morphology. Insights gained from continuum and process morphology can inspire research in plant morphology and plant evo-devo, especially MorphoEvoDevo.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".