MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175178304 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2012-0133

An assessment of the potential for pollination facilitation of a rare plant by common plants: S<i>ymphyotrichum sericeum</i> (Asteraceae) as a case study

2013· article· en· W2175178304 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Diana Bizecki Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
FundersWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsBiologyGeneralist and specialist speciesPollinationPollinatorPlant reproductionFacilitationInsectBotanyCompetition (biology)Flowering plantEcologyPollenHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollination facilitation can occur when plant species share pollinators. Whether facilitation occurs depends on the flowering period overlap (synchrony), number of shared insect visitors (similarity), quantity and quality of insect visits, and the subsequent impact on seed production. Western Silvery Aster (Symphyotrichum sericeum (Vent.) G.L. Nesom) is a rare, self-incompatible plant visited by a wide range of generalist insect species. There are 22 common plant species that may facilitate insect visitation to the rare plant by supporting shared pollinators. Plant species with low synchrony and high similarity with S. sericeum are potential facilitators. In contrast, plant species with high synchrony and similarity likely act as competitors as the aggregative response to increasing plant density was saturating, suggesting that synchronously flowering species do not increase insect visitations. Hymenoptera responded more strongly than Diptera to increases in flowering stem density. These data suggest that facilitation of insect visitation between plant species via a numerical response that extends the flower season is possible but not likely via an aggregative response. Restoration of S. sericeum may therefore be more successful if potentially facilitating plants are grown with it; further testing of the impact of potential facilitators on seed production in S. sericeum is required.

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 score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207