MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107098364 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1200107

Uniform female‐biased sex ratios in alpine willows

2012· article· en· W2107098364 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isla H. Myers‐Smith, David S. Hik

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaArctic Institute of North America
KeywordsBiologyWillowSex ratioEcologySeedlingDemographyZoologyBotanyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The development of biased sex ratios in dioecious plant species has been ascribed to either (1) factors influencing differential adult mortality of male and female plants or (2) factors acting at an early life stage that determine seed sex ratio or seedling survival. METHODS: To discriminate between these two competing hypotheses, we surveyed sex and age of 379 individuals from five species of the genus Salix across 11 alpine valleys in the southwest Yukon. KEY RESULTS: We observed uniformly female-biased sex ratios of approximately 2:1 across all adult age cohorts and patch sizes of the five willow species. No spatial variation in sex ratio occurred that could be associated with site-specific characteristics such as elevation or aspect. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the female-biased sex ratios in the alpine willow species investigated in this study are not a consequence of ecological processes acting on established adult plants. The sex ratio is instead determined at an early life stage by a mechanism that remains unknown.

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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207