MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The evolution of polymorphic sexual systems in daffodils (<i>Narcissus</i>)

2004· review· en· W1781437041 on OpenAlexafffund
Spencer C. H. Barrett, Lawrence D. Harder

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyNarcissusMating systemEvolutionary biologySexual dimorphismPollinationMonomorphismZoologyBotanyMatingPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narcissus, the daffodil genus, exhibits an unusual diversity of sexual systems, with populations that are monomorphic, dimorphic or trimorphic for style length. Associated with this variation are striking differences among species in floral morphology and pollination biology. This diversity provides an opportunity to investigate the evolution of mating polymorphisms, and to determine how floral morphology promotes transitions among sexual systems. Because of the absence of heteromorphic incompatibility in Narcissus, floral morphology plays a key role in governing patterns of outcrossed mating. Phylogenetic evidence indicates that stylar monomorphism is ancestral in the genus, with multiple origins of stylar polymorphism, including independent origins of stigma-height dimorphism, distyly and tristyly. Sexual polymorphisms have evolved only in lineages with narrow floral tubes that are pollinated by Lepidoptera and/or long-tongued bees. Populations of polymorphic Narcissus species are typically dominated by the long-styled morph and display imperfect reciprocity in the positions of sexual organs. These features are consequences of the unusual association between stylar polymorphism and a self-incompatibility system that permits intramorph mating.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207