MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503785051 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2011)12

Dynamics of insect pollinators as influenced by cocoa production systems in Ghana

2011· article· en· W1503785051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E.A. Frimpong, Barbara Gemmill‐Herren, I. Gordon, Peter Kwapong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinatorAbundance (ecology)BiologyPollinationPopulationInsectBeneficial insectsAgroforestryAgricultureEcologyAgronomyPollenPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cocoa is strictly entomophilous but studies on the influence of the ecosystem on insect pollinators in cocoa production systems are limited. The abundance of cocoa pollinators and pod-set of cocoa as influenced by a gradient of farm distances from natural forest and proportion of plantain/banana clusters in or adjacent to cocoa farms were therefore investigated. Cocoa pollinators trapped were predominantly ceratopogonid midges hence, analyses were based on their population. Variation in farm distance to forest did neither influence ceratopogonid midge abundance nor cocoa pod-set. However, we found a positive relationship between pollinator abundance and fruit set and the proportion of plantain/banana intercropped with cocoa. The results suggest appropriate cocoa intercrop can enhance cocoa pollination, and the current farming system in Ghana can conveniently accommodate such interventions without significant changes in farm practices. download Appendices

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207