MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012944939 · doi:10.1139/b00-133

Flower orientation in <i>Pachycereus pringlei</i>

2000· article· en· W2012944939 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsInterceptionBotanyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The orientation of flowers in columnar cacti has been a subject of great interest to plant biologists. The interpretation of this pattern has invoked warmer temperatures as the underlying factor. In this paper, we describe flower orientation in two populations of Pachycereus pringlei (S. Watson) Britton &amp; Rose and propose a hypothesis of the underlying mechanism. Stems from the two populations showed a significant mean direction of their flowers, with most flowers (70-77%) present between 90 and 270°. Photosynthetic photon flux density interception and stem temperature reached maximum values on south-facing ribs, showing concordance with flower orientation. We suggest that PFD interception, through its influence on CO 2 uptake and stem temperature, is the major factor underlying the observed orientation of flowers in P. pringlei.Key words: columnar cacti, flower orientation, Pachycereus pringlei, PFD interception.

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 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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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