MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148342269 · doi:10.1139/b05-131

Reproductive biology of the<i>Ilex</i>species (Aquifoliaceae) in Hong Kong, China

2005· article· en· W2148342269 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anita C.W. Tsang, Richard T. Corlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Hong Kong
KeywordsBiologyBotanyHorticultureSugarSex ratioPopulationFood scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fourteen wild species of shrubs and trees in the dioecious genus Ilex occur in Hong Kong (22°N, 114°E). All species flowered and formed fruits once each year. Sex ratios at flowering were male biased in all but one large population studied and, in most cases, this bias could not be explained by earlier flowering in males or higher female mortality. Apis cerana accounted for &gt;87% of flower visits in all species and there was a significant positive relationship across species between the number of visits per flower per hour and the estimated mean number of flowers on a plant. The large green fruits of Ilex chapaensis Merr. were consumed only by masked palm civets, Paguma larvata, while the red or black fruits of other species were consumed by birds. The rate of fruit removal across species was positively related to sugar content and negatively related to phenolic and saponin contents. The mean number of pyrenes per fruit was 4.0–6.2 and the mean percentage of pyrenes containing seeds was 49%–90%. Most embryos were immature (heart shaped) at fruit maturity, but &lt;50% of embryos developed further in some species. Floral investment was 0.93–5.84 times higher in male plants, but total reproductive investment was 0.62–8.3 higher in females.

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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations39
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207