MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904182799 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2018)19

Movements of floral parts and roles of the tooth on the column wall of <i>Bulbophyllum praetervisum</i> (Orchidaceae) flower in pollination by Dacini fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)

2018· article· en· W2904182799 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. H. Tan, Lin Tze Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepalBiologyPetalPollinationOrchidaceaePollinatorBotanyNectarHorticultureStamenPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bulbophyllum is the largest genus of the orchid family, with about 2000 species that are mainly pollinated by flies. Flowers of many Bulbophyllum species under the Sections Sestochilos and Beccariana specifically attract Dacini fruit flies, Bactrocera and Zeugodacus species, as pollinators. Non-nectar producing and non-resupinate solitary flowers of Bu. pratervisum emit specific and pleasant floral fragrances to specifically attract and reward male fruit flies. Slippery surfaces on their lateral sepals aid in pollination. Although pollinia removal by male fruit flies has been observed frequently, deposition of pollinia to complete pollination (by two males of Ba. albistrigata and Z. caudatus) has only been observed recently. Field observations show two previously unreported movements of floral parts – a) petals and medial sepal during daily closing and reopening of flowers, and b) the spring-loaded and hinged lip during removal and deposition of pollinia by a male fruit fly. Additionally, a third (novel) movement has been observed, either when the flower closes for the night to protect the stigma, or after a fly has deposited the pollinia onto the stigma, the 'acute tooth' on each column wall folds inwards specifically to secure the newly deposited pollinia.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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