Flies and flowers: taxonomic diversity of anthophiles and pollinators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Diptera are the second most important order among flower-visiting (anthophilous) and flower-pollinating insects worldwide. Their taxonomic diversity ranges from Nematocera to Brachycera, including most families within the suborders. Especially important are Syrphidae, Bombyliidae, and Muscoidea. Other families, especially of small flies, are less appreciated and often overlooked for their associations with flowers. We have compiled records of their flower visitations to show that they may be more prevalent than usually thought. Our knowledge of anthophilous Diptera needs to be enhanced by future research concerning ( i ) the significance of nocturnal Nematocera and acalypterate muscoids as pollinators, ( ii ) the extent to which the relatively ineffective pollen-carrying ability of some taxa can be compensated by the abundance of individuals, and ( iii ) the role of Diptera as pollinators of the first flowering plants (Angiospermae) by using phylogenetic and palaeontological evidence. Specializations in floral relationships involve the morphology of Diptera, especially of their mouthparts, nutritional requirements, and behaviour, as well as concomitant floral attributes. The South African flora has the most highly specialized relations with dipterous pollinators, but in arctic and alpine generalist fly–flower relations are important in pollination and fly nutrition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it