Morpho Evo-Devo of the Gynoecium: Heterotopy, Redefinition of the Carpel, and a Topographic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 19th century, we have had countless debates, sometimes acrimonious, about the nature of the gynoecium. A pivotal question has been whether all angiosperms possess carpels or if some or all angiosperms are acarpellate. We can resolve these debates if we do not define the carpel as a closed megasporophyll but simply as an appendage that encloses the placenta or a single ovule. This redefinition may, however, lead to confusion because often it may not be clear whether the traditional (classical) definition of the carpel or the redefinition is implied. Therefore, a topographic approach is proposed that is compatible with the redefinition. According to this approach, gynoecia comprise one or more gynoecial appendages and placentas or single ovules that may be formed in different positions. Heterotopy refers to these different positions. In the context of evo-devo, which explores evolutionary changes in development, morpho evo-devo delves into spatial shifts of the placentas and ovules leading to heterotopy. Furthermore, it considers shifts in timing (heterochrony) and other processes leading to heteromorphy. Recognizing spatial shifting of the placentas or a single ovule and other evolutionary processes opens up new vistas in the search for the ancestor(s) of angiosperms and their gynoecia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".