MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518929721 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2009)1

Effectiveness of native bumblebees as pollinators of the alien invasive plant <I>Impatiens glandulifera</I> (Balsaminaceae) in Ireland

2009· article· en· W1518929721 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline Nienhuis, Jane C. Stout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBumblebeePollinatorBiologyPollinationPollenBalsaminaceaeImpatiensAlienRange (aeronautics)BotanyEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flowers of alien invasive plants can be pollen limited due to a lack of effective pollinators. The alien Impatiens glandulifera is predominantly visited by bumblebees in its invaded range. There bumblebees pollinate I. glandulifera, but it remains unclear whether foraging behaviour or bumblebee or flower morphology affects effectiveness. We investigated the effectiveness of native bumblebee (Bombus pascuorum) pollinators in Ireland by quantifying pollen deposition and removal, and seed production after a single bumblebee visit. Morphological characteristics of flowers and bumblebee body parts were measured to determine their influence on pollen deposition and removal. B. pascuorum is a highly effective pollinator of the alien due to its high visitation frequency, the morphological fit with flowers and individuals removing large pollen quantities and inducing maximum seed set after a single visit. The impact of native bumblebees on I. glandulifera pollination and the implications of the pollination mechanism of the alien for its successful spread are discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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