MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041543620 · doi:10.1139/b08-132

Flowering period, thermogenesis, and pattern of visiting insects in <i>Arisaema triphyllum</i> (Araceae) in Quebec

2009· article· en· W2041543620 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Isabelle Barriault, Marc Gibernau, Denis Barabé

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalEspace pour la vie
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyInflorescenceAraceaeBotanyPollinationTemperate climatePerennial plantPopulationCecidomyiidaeHorticulturePollenDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jack-in-the-Pulpit ( Arisaema triphyllum (L.) Torr.) is a perennial forest herb of southern Canada and the eastern United States. The flowering periods of male and female inflorescences in relation to the temperature of the inflorescence and the activity pattern of visiting insects were studied in one population in western Montreal Island (Quebec, Canada). The flowering period of A. triphyllum was long (20 d in male and female plants), which is unusual in temperate Aroideae. This floral trait could have evolved secondarily as an adaptation to increase pollination efficiency under highly variable weather conditions at high latitude. In male and female plants, no significant temperature increase of the appendix was recorded. The warming effect of sunlight during the day could be sufficient for the emission of the attractive odour. Two Dipteran families, the Mycetophilidae and the Cecidomyiidae, were the most frequent insect visitors of A. triphyllum. Our observations showed that odour production is linked with the pollination activity beginning with insect visits.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.200
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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207