MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128584573 · doi:10.5539/jps.v1n2p40

A Comparison of Dispersal Traits in Dandelions Growing in Urban Landscape and Open Meadows

2012· article· en· W2128584573 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H. S. Arathi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColorado State University
KeywordsAcheneBiological dispersalDandelionHabitatBiologyGerminationSeed dispersalLimitingUrban landscapeEcologyBotanyGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The highly fragmented nature of habitats for plant growth in the urban landscape offers unique challenges to these plants and some weedy species have been particularly successful in exploiting these urban habitats. The common dandelion, Taraxacum officinale, is one such highly successful weed that grows profusely in both urban landscapes and open meadows. In this study, the growth, flowering intensity and achene and seed morphology of urban and meadow dandelions were compared. Achenes from urban plants showed higher germination and flowering success, producing significantly higher number of flowers. Achene morphology differed significantly between the two populations such that urban achenes have longer pappus beaks than their meadow counter parts. Urban achenes also dropped quickly to the ground limiting their dispersal capacity from the maternal plant. Morphological traits of urban dandelion achenes are likely to allow for enhanced survival under variable environments in the urban landscapes. Dandelions have been shown to be highly successful and especially capable of adjusting to different environmental pressures which may be the key to their success in colonizing diverse habitats all across the world including urban environments that constantly undergo modification.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207