MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985352218 · doi:10.2980/20-2-3594

Dispersal of an herbaceous perennial,<i>Paeonia brownii</i>, by scatter-hoarding rodents

2013· article· en· W1985352218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Barga, Stephen B. Vander Wall

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerennial plantSeed dispersalHerbaceous plantBiologyPeromyscusBotanySeed predationBiological dispersalGerminationMesophyteHorticultureEcologyDeciduousPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most plants that are dispersed by seed-caching animals are large, woody trees that produce large, nutritious nuts. But a few species dispersed in this way are relatively small shrubs or perennial herbs. Wild peony (Paeonia brownii) is a perennial herb in western North America that is dispersed by seed-caching rodents such as chipmunks (Tamias sp.), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and pocket mice (Perognathus parvus). These rodents harvest seeds from the dehiscent, pendant pods and transport them short distances (most <20 m) and cache 1 or a few seeds from 0 to 15 mm deep in soil. Unrecovered seeds germinate in the spring. Unlike most nuts, peony seeds are not highly preferred food items; they are rich in carbohydrates and low in lipids and protein. Rodents remove peony seeds slowly compared to Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) seeds, which are highly preferred by rodents and dispersed in the same manner. The low preference for peony seeds may benefit the plants: peony seeds are slow to be harvested and cached, but also slow to be removed from caches and eaten. Small herbaceous plants cannot produce large crops of large, attractive seeds to satiate potential seed dispersers, as do most nut-bearing trees, so producing low-preference food items probably helps these types of plants to ensure that some of the seeds survive to germinate.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207