MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009985004 · doi:10.1139/b07-025

The association between floral longevity and pollen removal, pollen receipt, and fruit production in flame azalea (<i>Rhododendron calendulaceum</i>)

2007· article· en· W2009985004 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy C. Blair, Lorne M. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeorgia Southern UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPollenAzaleaBiologyAnthesisStamenLongevityBotanyPollinationHorticultureShrubCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floral longevity is an important feature of a plant’s reproductive strategy. The goal of this study was to examine flower life span in the shrub flame azalea ( Rhododendron calendulaceum (Michx.) Torr.) to determine if it is fixed or plastic and to evaluate its association with pollen removal and receipt. Unmanipulated flowers remained open for ~10 days, while hand-pollinated flowers closed earlier (~7 days), indicating that these flowers are subject to pollination-induced senescence. In 2002, pollen removal was rapid (~70% of pollen was removed in the first 2 h of anthesis), while female function was a slower process (pollen accumulated on stigmas for up to 4 days). Fruit set was pollen limited, as 80% of hand-outcrossed flowers set fruit versus 35% of naturally pollinated flowers. This is likely the result of the pollen-collecting behavior of a common solitary bee, which did not contact stigmas. In sharp contrast, 2003 was a cooler and wetter spring, few flower visitors were observed, and virtually no pollen was removed from or deposited on stigmas after 48 h. These results suggest that the flower life span of flame azalea is a result of selection for increasing the probability of pollen receipt rather than pollen dispersal.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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