MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169301553 · doi:10.1139/b10-003

A comparison of flower-visiting insects to rare <i>Symphyotrichum sericeum</i> and common <i>Solidago nemoralis</i> (Asteraceae)

2010· article· en· W2169301553 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Diana Bizecki Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
FundersWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsBiologyPollinationBotanyAsteraceaePollenInsect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flower-visiting insect activity to the rare Symphyotrichum sericeum (Vent.) G.L. Nesom and the common Solidago nemoralis Ait. var. longipetiolata (Mack. &amp; Bush) Pal. &amp; Steyerm. was examined to detect compositional and temporal similarities. A hand pollination experiment was conducted to determine whether pollen was limiting seed set. Of the 31 insect taxa that visited these plants, Bombus bifarius Cresson was the most common visitor to both species. More insect visitors of the Halictidae and Bombyliidae were received by S. sericeum than S. nemoralis, which received more visitors of the Syrphidae and Tachinidae. The insect visitation rate was not significantly different between the two plant species. Solidago nemoralis was visited by fewer insect taxa per day than S. sericeum, but the constancy of its visitors was higher. The insect visitor composition changed over time, with B. bifarius ignoring S. sericeum plants initially, then visiting them more frequently as the number of receptive S. nemoralis capitula declined. Hand pollination increased seed set in the earliest flowering capitula of S. sericeum, but not for those flowering during the peak. This research shows that the quantity of insect visits to the rare plant is comparable with that of the common plant but that pollination quality may be lower, particularly for early blooming capitula.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207