MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999684023 · doi:10.1139/b01-087

Male and hermaphrodite flowers in the alpine lily <i>Lloydia serotina</i>

2001· article· en· W1999684023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Doménica Manicacci, Laurence Després

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHermaphroditeBiologyLiliaceaeBotanyPollenPerennial plant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In perennial species that produce only one flower per individual each year, androdiœcy (coexistence of genetic male and hermaphrodite individuals) may be difficult to distinguish from andromonœcy (male and hermaphrodite flowers on the same plant). We show that the alpine lily, Lloydia serotina Rchb., produces functionally male and hermaphroditic flowers. Mean male frequency in 11 populations in the French Alps was 48.5%, ranging from 15.5 to 67.5%. Male flowers do not produce more pollen nor sire more seeds per flower in controlled pollinations than hermaphrodite flowers. Male floral scapes were consistently shorter than those of hermaphrodites. Out of several thousand observed floral scapes, four had two flowers, all with a terminal hermaphroditic flower and an axillary male one. Among 107 bulbs transplanted in pots in 1996, eighteen expressed a different sexual phenotype in 1999 or 2000, and one hermaphrodite produced two flowers of different sexes in 2000. Together, these results suggest that L. serotina is andromonœcious throughout its lifetime.Key words: Lloydia serotina, andromonœcy, male reproductive success, Liliaceae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207