MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160316408 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2015)13

Breeding system of <i>Linum rigidum</i> and effect of heterospecific pollen from introduced <i>Euphorbia esula</i>

2015· article· en· W2160316408 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benjamin R. Montgomery, Caleb W. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenBiologyPollinatorPollinationPollen sourceGerminationBotanyOutcrossing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the reproductive biology of, and effect of heterospecific pollen from introduced Euphorbia esula on, Linum rigidum, an annual plant native to western and central North America. Breeding-system studies revealed that L. rigidum is self-compatible, with similar pollination success, fruit set and seed set for flowers pollinated with self or outcrossed pollen. Untreated flowers not exposed to pollinators set seed, albeit at a lower rate than hand-pollinated flowers, indicating that L. rigidum can autonomously self pollinate. Experiments investigating whether heterospecific pollen transfer from E. esula interferes with pollination of L. rigidum indicated that large amounts of heterospecific pollen receipt 2 - 4 hours prior to conspecifc pollen receipt reduced fruit and seed production, but that small amounts of heterospecific pollen or larger amounts received immediately prior to conspecific pollen did not affect reproduction. Pollen of E. esula was observed to germinate on and penetrate into L. rigidum stigmas and styles. Nevertheless, Euphorbia esula is unlikely to interfere with L. rigidum’s reproduction because L. rigidum is self-compatible, capable of autonomous self-pollination, and unaffected by receipt of small amounts of Euphorbia pollen.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207