MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144287740 · doi:10.1139/b08-017

Pollination effects on patterns of ovule fate in <i>Hesperis matronalis</i> (Brassicaceae)

2008· article· en· W2144287740 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David J. Susko, Michelle Clubb

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvuleBiologyBotanyPollenPollen tubeGerminationBrassicaceaePollinationSeedlingBoraginaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined ovule positional effects on patterns of ovule development within linear fruits of the invasive weed, dame’s rocket, Hesperis matronalis L. Fruits were collected from two sites in southwestern Ontario, Canada. The majority of ovules within fruits were aborted early in development. Emergent patterns of ovule abortion and seed maturation within fruits were nonrandom and dependent on ovule position. The probability of seed maturation within individual fruits decreased significantly from basal to distal ends, suggesting an intrafruit resource gradient. Self-pollinated flowers at one site produced fruits with a similar pattern of seed maturation as was found for open-pollinated plants. However, cross-pollinated flowers produced fruits in which the pattern of seed maturation was reversed; more seeds were matured at the distal ends rather than the basal ends of fruits, indicative of a fertilization gradient. Analysis of pollen-tube growth showed that ovule failure may not be attributed to pollen limitation. For seeds produced via hand-pollinations, we found no relationship between seed mass and seedling biomass, although seeds from self-pollinations germinated more readily than did seeds from cross-pollinations. While patterns of ovule fate in H. matronalis can be manipulated by pollen source, the effects of such patterns on plant fitness are yet to be determined.

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 score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207