MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892439545 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2018.0377

Frugivores and the evolution of fruit colour

2018· article· en· W2892439545 on OpenAlexaff
Omer Nevo, Kim Valenta, Diary Razafimandimby, Amanda Melin, Manfred Ayasse, Colin A. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsFrugivoreBiologyEvolutionary biologyBiological evolutionEcologyZoologyHabitatGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecological function of fruit colour has been the focus of many studies. The most commonly tested hypothesis is that fruit colour has evolved to facilitate detection by seed-dispersing animals. We tested whether distributions of fruit colours are consistent with the hypothesis that colour is an evolved signal to seed dispersers using a comparative community approach. We compared the contrast between ripe fruits and leaf backgrounds at two sites, one in Madagascar where seed dispersers are primarily night-active, red-green colour-blind lemurs, and the other in Uganda, where most vertebrate seed dispersers are day-active primates and birds with greater capacity for colour vision. We show that fruits in Uganda have higher contrast against leaf background in the red-green and luminance channels whereas fruits in Madagascar contrast more in the yellow-blue channel. These results indicate that fruit colour has evolved to contrast against background leaves in response to the visual capabilities of local seed disperser communities.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations72
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207