Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a pollination ecology study conducted in the boreal forest of southern Yukon. Insect pollination is a mutualistic relationship in which the plant receives pollen necessary to produce seeds, while the pollinator receives a reward such as nectar. Floral longevity is the length of time a flower blooms for, from when it first opens to when the petals wilt or fall off. My study focused on Arctic lupine (Lupinus arcticus) and examined floral longevity in relation to methods of pollination. Flowers that were insect-pollinated or cross-pollinated by hand bloomed for less time and produced more seeds than flowers isolated from pollinators. This shows that insect-pollination is associated with higher pollination success (indicated by higher seed production), and that hand-pollination has a similar effect. Therefore, high pollination success was associated with shorter floral longevities. \nPollination-induced shortening of floral longevity is likely an adaptation to increase the efficiency of plant-pollinator interactions. For plants, the main purpose of a flower is to be pollinated, so once pollination has occurred it is energetically unfavourable for the flower to maintain its blooming state. For pollinators, the senescence of flowers soon after they are pollinated discourages insects from visiting flowers whose rewards (ex. nectar) have been depleted by previous visitors. These processes suggest that plants and pollinators are energy-limited. Understanding such aspects of pollination ecology are meaningful in the face of declines of native pollinator and plant populations, as they can better inform conservation efforts.
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".