How the volatile organic compounds emitted by corpse plant change through flowering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corpse plant (Amorphophallus titanum) is so named because it produces a pungent, foul odor when flowering. Little is known about how the emitted volatiles change throughout the two-day flowering period. In this study, the comprehensive monitoring of the presence and change in volatile molecules during the female and the male flowering phases of A. titanum was conducted, and the plant temperature was monitored. A total of 422 volatile features were detected over the entire sampling period, of which 118 features were statistically significantly different between the pre-flowering and both flowering phases, and an additional 304 features were found present throughout the flowering period. A total of 45 molecules could be assigned putative names. The volatile profile of A. titanum changes over the two-day flowering period, with the S-containing molecules and aldehydes dominant in the female flowering phase, and the alcohols and hydrocarbons dominant in the male flowering phase. The two-dimensional gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC × GC-TOFMS) enabled us to identify 32 new molecules produced by A. titanum. Each of these molecules alone, and in combination, likely contribute to the different odors emitted during the flowering phase of A. titanum.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".