Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycotyly, an interesting characteristic of seed-bearing dicotyledonous plants with more than two cotyledons, represents one of the least explored plant characters for utilization, even though cotyledon number was used to classify flowering plants in 1682. Gymnosperm and angiosperm species are generally known to have one or two cotyledons, but scattered reports exist on irregular cotyledon numbers in many plant species, and little is known about the extent of polycotyly in plant taxa. Here, we attempt to update the documentation of reports on polycotyly in plant species and highlight some lines of research for a better understanding of polycotyly. This effort revealed 342 angiosperm species of 237 genera in 80 (out of 416) families and 160 gymnosperm species of 26 genera in 6 (out of 12) families with reported or cited polycotyly. The most advanced research included the molecular-based inference of the phylogeny of flowering plants, showing a significant departure from the cotyledon-based classification of angiosperm plants, and the application of genetic cotyledon mutants as tools to clone and characterize the genes regulating cotyledon development. However, there were no reports on breeding lines with a 100% frequency of polycotyly. Research is needed to discover plant species with polycotyly and to explore the nature, development, genetics, evolution, and potential use of polycotyly.
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 | 0.001 |
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".