Entomophily of the cloudberry (<i>Rubus chamaemorus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cloudberry ( Rubus chamaemorus L.), a dioecious perennial plant of boreal circumpolar distribution, is greatly prized for its berries. We crossed two treatments, pollinator exclusion and supplementary hand‐pollination, to determine i) the relative importance of insects as pollinators, ii) if pollinator activity was a limiting factor for the sexual reproduction of the plant, and iii) the relative contribution of diurnal vs. nocturnal visitors to pollination. The activity of natural pollinators resulted in 97.5 and 88.5% fruit set, along with 76.7 and 62.5% seed set in 1998 and 1999, respectively. When insects were excluded, fruit‐set dropped significantly to 18.4 (1998) and 12.8% (1999) and seed‐set to 5.4 (1998) and 5.0% (1999) showing the importance of mid‐ and large‐sized insects as pollinators. Natural levels of insect activity were sufficient to ensure complete pollination in both years as supplementary hand‐pollination did not significantly increase either parameter in plots where pollinators had free access. Nocturnal insects may serve as pollinators (fruit‐set = 41%), although they were less effective than diurnal pollinators (fruit‐set = 93%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".