Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most species of flowering plants depend on animals, such as bees, to move their pollen and enable sexual reproduction, and most animal pollinators, in turn, depend on flowers as sources of food or other materials. Although the interaction is mutualistic, benefitting both plants and animals, it is not cooperation, because the best ‘interests’ of the two partners differ. Animal pollination is critical for crop and natural ecosystems and plays central roles in plant ecology and evolution. In particular, selection imposed by animal pollinators is thought to have driven the evolution of much of the floral diversity we see today. Most plant–pollinator relationships are not specialised, one‐to‐one mutualisms – a fact that should make pollination networks somewhat resilient to species extinctions. Nevertheless, recent pollinator declines have given rise to concerns about loss of pollination services to crops and wild plant populations. Key Concepts: Most flowering plant species depend on animals to transfer pollen from anthers (the male organs of flowers) to stigmas (the female organs) in order to produce seeds. Pollinating animals visit flowers to obtain resources: usually nectar or pollen, but sometimes oils, fragrances, resins or oviposition sites. The divergent ‘interests’ of plants and pollinators in the interaction explain such phenomena as unrewarding flowers and nectar‐robbing insects. Recent pollinator declines are causing concern about the maintenance of pollination services to crops and wild plants. Pollination webs illustrating the linkages among plants and pollinators within a community show that reciprocally specialised interactions are rare. Numerous studies show that pollinators can exert selection on plant traits, but selection by plants on pollinator traits has been harder to demonstrate. Pollinators play an important role in the process of reproductive isolation and speciation in flowering plants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".