Floral biology of <i>Adolphia infesta</i> and the reproductive profile of Colletieae (Rhamnaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproduction of the shrub Adolphia infesta was studied in a population included in a Mexican agricultural landscape with small, cultivated plots and fragments of natural habitat. Adolphia infesta had reproductive traits consistent with those known for its tribe Colletieae, including small zoophilous flowers exposed to both xenogamous, geitonogamous and visitor-facilitated intrafloral pollination, with selfing being at least partially hindered by self-incompatibility. Visual and olfactory cues, together with easily accessible rewards (nectar and pollen), explain the diversity (68 species of 29 families) of insects attracted to the flowers. However, only a small subset can be considered potential pollinators (honeybee and three muscoid flies). In late floral development, pedicel bending brings the developing fruit to an upright position, which might later optimise explosive seed dispersal. The finding of this trait in A. infesta makes fruit erection a synapomorphy of the Adolphia – Discaria – Kentrothamnus clade of the tribe Colletieae. At the study site, A. infestaplayed a significant role as food source for the local anthophilous insect community, and through its flower visitors, the plant was indirectly connected to 11 other plant species. Knowledge derived from community studies should be applied in conservation initiatives directed at enhancing farmers’ appreciation of extant local biodiversity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".