MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118335671 · doi:10.1890/08-1063.1

Floral morphology mediates temporal variation in the mating system of a self‐compatible plant

2009· article· en· W2118335671 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher G. Eckert, Barbara Ozimec, Christopher R. Herlihy, Celine A. Griffin, Matthew B. Routley

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphology (biology)Mating systemEcologyBiologyVariation (astronomy)MatingEvolutionary biologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mating system of self-compatible plants may fluctuate between years in response to ecological factors that cause variation in the deposition of self pollen vs. outcross pollen on stigmas. Such temporal variation may have significant ecological and evolutionary consequences, but it has rarely been studied, and the mechanisms that mediate temporal variation have almost never been investigated. We tested for variation in the proportion of seeds self-fertilized (s) between two years within 19 populations of the short-lived herb Aquilegia canadensis. Selfing varied widely among populations (range in s = 0.17-1.00, mean s = 0.82) but was inconsistent across years, indicating significant temporal variation. Three populations exhibited especially wide swings in the mating system between years. Mean s did not decrease with increasing population size (N), nor was the fluctuation in s associated with mean N or the change in N. As expected, s declined with increasing separation between anthers and stigmas within flowers (herkogamy), and s fluctuated to a greater extent in populations with more herkogamous flowers. Self-compatible plants can experience wide temporal variation in self-fertilization, and floral traits such as herkogamy may mediate temporal variation by forestalling self-pollination and thus allowing outcrossing during periods when pollinators are frequent.

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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207