MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610303340 · doi:10.1139/as-2016-0030

High Incidence and Correlates of Dioecy in the Flora of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago

2017· article· en· W2610303340 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Peter G. Kevan, Becky Godglick

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDioecyBiologyPollinationEcologyTaxonArchipelagoPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In comparing the incidence of dioecy in North American floras, we report a strong, positive correlation with increasing latitude. Dioecy in the High Arctic is highly correlated with woodiness, as elsewhere. It is significantly correlated with fleshy, zoochorous fruits as well documented elsewhere. Correlation with floral inconspicuousness, which we define in terms of attractiveness to pollinators (i.e., functionality to pollination), is weak and statistically insignificant. Published findings on that correlation are equivocal; different authors variously defined inconspicuousness in ways that may or may not reflect functionality in pollination. Although we acknowledge that for some diverse taxa (e.g., Salix spp.) the relative importances of anemophily, zoophily (entomophily), and ambophily are unknown, we assigned species to (a) anemophily if evidence for entomophily could not be invoked and (b) entomophily if insect pollination was considered possible (i.e., counts for entomophily include possibly ambophilous species). We found no correlation between dioecy and anemophily/entomophily. The view that insularity favours establishment of dioecious taxa may be invoked by considering localized and disjoint post-glacial colonization. The view that dioecy, as a form of xenogamy, has evolved in response to offsetting the adverse consequences of inbreeding and accumulation of mutations may apply under High Arctic conditions, further eroding ideas that short, harsh, active seasons promote self-fertilization (autogamy), agamospermy, and vegetative reproduction while disfavouring xenogamy by insect or wind pollination.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207