Flowering as a key factor in ant–<i>Philodendron</i> interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the spread of angiosperms some lineages of ants, originally ground-dwellers and predators, adapted to arboreal life. Ground-nesting worker ants probably constituted the first case of biotic plant protection through their predatory activity while foraging on plant foliage. Then, ants developed tight evolutionary bonds with plants varying from facultative diffuse relationships to obligatory specific associations, necessary to the survival of both partners. In diffuse relationships plants induce different ant species to patrol their foliage by producing energy-rich food rewards such as extra-floral nectar (EFN) and/or food bodies (FBs) (Dejean et al. 2007, Heil 2008, Heil & McKey 2003). First described by Janzen (1966), myrmecophytes, or plants that provide specialized plant-ants a nesting place in hollow structures called domatia, represent a good example of a strict association as, in return, they are protected from several kinds of enemies, particularly defoliating insects (Heil & McKey 2003, Hölldobler & Wilson 1990).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".