MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046922942 · doi:10.2980/21-1-3679

Songbird dispersal of American ginseng (<i>Panax quinquefolius</i>)

2014· article· en· W2046922942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy M. Hruska, Sara Souther, James B. McGraw

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGinsengAmerican ginsengBiological dispersalBiologySeed dispersalUnderstoryDeciduousSongbirdBotanyEcologyPopulationMedicineCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) is an uncommon perennial understory herb found in eastern deciduous forest. The species is harvested for the international medicinal plant trade. While previous research has inferred that seed dispersal is limited, the production of bright red, fleshy berries suggests long-distance dispersal may be facilitated by songbirds. The objective of this study was to determine how songbirds interacted with ginseng and whether they dispersed or predated ginseng seeds. We used infrared, motion-activated cameras to observe animal—ginseng interactions in the field. To determine the disperser potential of songbirds observed visiting ginseng in the field, we conducted a captive feeding study at the Tennessee Aquarium. Thrushes removed berries from ginseng infructescences more frequently, compared to other potential dispersers, and regurgitated viable seeds 5–37 minutes after ingestion in feeding trials. By dispersing ginseng seeds, thrushes provide a mechanism for ginseng to improve its probability of persistence in the face of 3 primary threats to populations: deer browse, harvest, and climate change.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207