MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041013417 · doi:10.1017/s0266467408005488

Flowering as a key factor in ant–<i>Philodendron</i> interactions

2008· article· en· W2041013417 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc Gibernau, Jérôme Orivel, Alain Déjean, Jacques Hubert Charles Delabie, Denis Barabé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tropical Ecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsArboreal locomotionBiologyMyrmecophyteNectarPredationEcologyForagingKey (lock)MyrmecophilyObligateFacultativeMutualism (biology)ANTHabitatPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 &amp; 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 &amp; McKey 2003, Hölldobler &amp; 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Tropical EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207