MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2734456153 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v131i1.1952

European Skipper Butterfly (<i>Thymelicus lineola</i>) Associated with Reduced Seed Development of Showy Lady’s-slipper Orchid (<i>Cypripedium reginae</i>)

2017· article· en· W2734456153 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Peter Hall, Paul M. Catling, Paul Mosquin, Ted Mosquin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinatorPollinationBiologyPopulationBotanyPollenDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that European Skipper butterflies (Thymelicus lineola) trapped in the lips of the Showy Lady’s-slipper orchid (Cypripedium reginae) may interfere with pollination. This could occur through blockage of the pollinator pathway, facilitation of pollinator escape without pollination, and/or disturbance of the normal pollinators. A large population of the orchid at an Ottawa Valley site provided an opportunity to test the interference hypothesis. The number of trapped skippers was compared in 475 post-blooming flowers with regard to capsule development and thus seed development. The presence of any skippers within flowers was associated with reduced capsule development (P = 0.0075), and the probability of capsule development was found to decrease with increasing numbers of skippers (P = 0.0271). The extent of a negative effect will depend on the abundance of the butterflies and the coincidence of flowering time and other factors. Counts of skippers trapped in flowers were found to follow closely a negative binomial distribution (P = 0.8656).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→