MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2882393336 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcy119

Functional significance of the optical properties of flowers for visual signalling

2018· review· en· W2882393336 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsBiologySignallingBotanyEvolutionary biologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Flower coloration is a key enabler for pollinator attraction. Floral visual signals comprise several components that are generated by specific anatomical structures and pigmentation, and often have different functions in pollinator attraction. Anatomical studies have advanced our understanding of the optical properties of flowers, and evidence from behavioural experiments has elucidated the biological relevance of different components of floral visual signals, but these two lines of research are often considered independently. Scope: Here, we review current knowledge about different aspects of the floral visual signals, their anatomical and optical properties, and their functional significance in plant-pollinator visual signalling. We discuss common aspects, such as chromatic and achromatic contrast, hue, saturation and brightness, as well as less common types of visual signals, including gloss, fluorescence, polarization and iridescence in the context of salience of floral colour signals and their evolution, and highlight promising avenues for future research.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.031 · 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