MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586642526 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2017)six

Quantifying pollen deposition with macro photography and 'stigmagraphs'

2017· article· en· W2586642526 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gail MacInnis, Jessica R. K. Forrest

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenDeposition (geology)Stigma (botany)BiologyBotanyHorticultureStructural basinPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pollen deposited during a single visit by a flower visitor (“single-visit deposition”; SVD) is often measured by removing the stigma from the flower and counting the pollen grains deposited under a microscope. This process precludes study of any subsequent interactions between the flower and later visitors (such as pollen removal from the stigma). Furthermore, if the stigma is excised too soon after the pollinator visit, the flower may be rendered infertile, such that any analyses of fruit or seed yield in relation to pollen deposition must be done indirectly. Here, a method of pollen deposition measurement was developed using macro photography and the open-source image-analysis software program ImageJ/Fiji. Using colour segmentation options within the program, the pollen grains can be distinguished from the background stigmatic surface, and the percentage of stigma coverage can be calculated. This pollen deposition measurement method leaves the sampled flower in the field to develop into fruit, allowing any subsequent yield or quality analyses to be conducted directly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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