Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the extensive research on the potential benefits of dioecy to individuals, little is known about the long‐term success of dioecious lineages in relation to their hermaphroditic or monoecious relatives. This study reports on the evolutionary success of worldwide dioecious flora in light of recent phylogenetic work by performing sister‐group comparisons of species richness between clades of angiosperms with different breeding systems. Whether this analysis is performed at the family or genus level, species richness is generally far lower in dioecious taxa when compared to their hermaphroditic or monoecious sister taxa. Despite the advantages of avoiding inbreeding depression and of allocating resources separately to male and female function, dioecy in angiosperms does not appear to be a key innovation promoting evolutionary radiation. A potential explanation for the low representation of dioecious lineages is that dioecious plants may have lower colonization rates. Baker’s Law states that self‐compatible lineages will have higher rates of successful long‐range dispersal since they do not require a mate; consequently, self‐compatible lineages may have higher rates of allopatric speciation. However, identical analyses performed with hermaphroditic self‐incompatible angiosperms did not produce similar results, suggesting that Baker’s law is not the reason for the poor representation of dioecy among angiosperm species.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".