MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032971675 · doi:10.1071/bt05125

A study of the reproductive biology of blue-flowered Conospermum species (Proteaceae)

2006· article· en· W2032971675 on OpenAlexaff
Lynley M. Stone, Kevin Seaton, Margaret Byrne, J. McComb

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersMurdoch University
KeywordsBiologyInflorescenceProteaceaePollinationBotanyPollenReproductive biologyPollinatorOutcrossingFruit set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blue-flowered Conospermum species are endemic to Western Australia, and are highly sought after in the horticulture industry. Aspects of the reproductive biology of several species were investigated. The paniculate inflorescences of Conospermum eatoniae E.Pritz. contain 6–10 florets; however, the uppermost two or three florets never open and only the basal one or two florets in an inflorescence set seed. When insect pollinators are excluded, flowers do not self-pollinate and set seed. Stigma receptivity occurred for up to 6 days following triggering of the style and was variable between C. eatoniae, C. amoenum Meisn. subsp. amoenum, C. caeruleum R.Br. and C. brownii Meisn. Hand-pollination with 10 pollen genotypes and two maternal C. eatoniae parents showed that although pollen tubes were observed in the style, no seed was set. Genetic analysis of open-set seed progeny showed that C. eatoniae outcrossed infrequently when grown in clonal rows in a plantation, but outcrossing was common in wild plants. This study demonstrates that the reproductive biology of blue-flowered Conospermum is complex and requires further investigation if the species are to be widely cultivated for horticulture.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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