MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101371772 · doi:10.1139/b07-127

Sex ratio, flowering and fruit set in dioecious <i>Rubus chamaemorus</i> (Rosaceae) in Labrador

2008· article· en· W2101371772 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amanda L. Karst, Joseph A. Antos, Geraldine A. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRubusQuadratSex ratioBotanyRosaceaeSexual reproductionPopulationReproductive successHabitatReproductionFruit setDioecyPollenEcologyHorticulturePollinationDemographyShrub

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rubus chamaemorus L. is a dioecious clonal herb with highly variable fruit production. Our overall objective was to determine how fruit production (and the reproductive stages leading to fruit) for R. chamaemorus varied with habitat and population (especially sex ratio) characteristics at scales from 1 m 2 quadrats to whole populations in southeastern Labrador, Canada. During the climatically favourable year studied, reproductive variables were only weakly correlated with habitat characteristics. Strongly biased sex ratios were found at scales of 1–10 m. Male-dominated quadrats exhibited a significantly higher proportion of flowering ramets than did female-dominated quadrats. Female-biased sex ratios of flowering ramets and large distances between male and female flowers were correlated with decreased seed set. We found no differences in microhabitats of males and females. Although the biased local sex ratios could limit sexual reproduction, the high fruit set we measured clearly indicates that populations are able to produce abundant fruit during favourable years in this unpredictable environment.

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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207