The effect of the dispersion of rewarding and rewardless flowers on visitation and constancy by bumblebees (<i>Bombus impatiens</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deceptive pollination strategies, in which plants rely on animal pollinators but provide no benefits to their pollinators, have evolved many times in angiosperms. However, the conditions that favour deceptive pollination strategies over mutualistic strategies are poorly understood. One factor that may be important for the success of deceptive strategies is the plants’ dispersion in relation to co-flowering, rewarding species. We compared pollinator behaviour across two artificial environments, one in which a rewardless species was mixed with a rewarding species and one in which the two species occurred in contiguous patches. Bumblebees both encountered and visited rewardless flowers more often when they were mixed with rewarding species. However, the rate of switching was also higher under those conditions, which could result in higher rates of interspecific pollen transfer. The environmental conditions most favourable to deceptive pollination strategies may vary depending on the vulnerability of the plant species to interspecific pollen transfer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".