MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951060138 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcz073

The thermal ecology of flowers

2019· review· en· W2951060138 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 · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsBiologyPollinatorMicroclimateEcologyOvulePollenPlant reproductionFloral biologyPollinationBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obtaining an optimal flower temperature can be crucial for plant reproduction because temperature mediates flower growth and development, pollen and ovule viability, and influences pollinator visitation. The thermal ecology of flowers is an exciting, yet understudied field of plant biology. SCOPE: This review focuses on several attributes that modify exogenous heat absorption and retention in flowers. We discuss how flower shape, orientation, heliotropic movements, pubescence, coloration, opening-closing movements and endogenous heating contribute to the thermal balance of flowers. Whenever the data are available, we provide quantitative estimates of how these floral attributes contribute to heating of the flower, and ultimately plant fitness. OUTLOOK: Future research should establish form-function relationships between floral phenotypes and temperature, determine the fitness effects of the floral microclimate, and identify broad ecological correlates with heat capture mechanisms.

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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.093 · 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