MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146265957 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2010)4

Floral visitors of <i>Ananas comosus</i> in Ghana: A preliminary assessment

2010· article· en· W2146265957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Kwapong, Andreas Kudom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPineapple and bromelain studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnanasNectarBiologyPollinationBotanyBromeliaceaeHorticulturePollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ananas comosus var comosus (L.) Merr. is the third most important tropical fruit in the world production and the leading foreign exchange earner among fresh fruits exported from Ghana. A survey was conducted in pineapple farms in the Central region of Ghana to identify floral visitors and their activities on the flowers. Nectar concentration and energetics and effect of floral visitors on fruit production were determined. Fourteen species of butterflies and one ant species were the main insect floral visitors as well as four species of sunbirds. The mean nectar concentration was 23.3% (± 0.39, SE) and pollination limitation did not significantly affect fruit yield (weight: p = 0.285; length: p = 0.056; width: p= 0.268). The study showed that butterflies, ants and sunbirds are the main floral visitors on A. comosus. However their visits did not results in pollination and fruit production was not affected in any way by floral visitation. Still, it was found that A. comosus provides an important nectar resource for its foragers. Even if pollination is not crucial in pineapple cultivation, it is still essential in pineapple breeding programs to promote genetic diversity and conservation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPineapple and bromelain studiesFrench-language works237,207