Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question: Is there evidence for limiting similarity in the timing of fruit production by a bird‐dispersed plant community? Is the rate of fruit removal in each plant species inversely related to fruit availability in other species? Can simple measurements of fruit phenologies (i.e. temporal changes in fruit availability) obscure important fruit attributes that influence their removal by birds? Location: Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Methods: Periods of fruit availability were measured in ten woody angiosperm species for two years. In the second year, the fate of individual fruits was quantified to disentangle dates of fruit maturation, removal and mortality from measurements of availability. Results: Null model analyses of fruit availability distributions showed no evidence for limiting similarity. However, fruit removal rates of most plant species were correlated with their relative abundance in the community, indicating fruits were removed more rapidly when other fruits were less abundant. Species with similar periods of fruit availability often had different dates of fruit maturation, rates of fruit removal and fruit persistence times, indicating fruit availability measurements can obscure important bird‐fruit interactions. Conclusions: Competition for dispersers appears to occur. However, it has not resulted in limiting similarity in fruit availability distributions. A likely explanation for this discrepancy is that fruit availability distributions often confound several important fruit attributes that can independently influence fruit removal by birds.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".