MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209749500 · doi:10.1016/j.cris.2021.100022

Phenological synchrony between the hoary squash bee (Eucera pruinosa) and cultivated acorn squash (Cucurbita pepo) flowering is imperfect at a northern site

2021· article· en· W3209749500 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D. Susan Willis Chan, Nigel E. Raıne

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Research in Insect Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des ParcsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsCucurbita pepoPollinationBiologyPhenologyPollinatorSquashCropPollenAgronomyCucurbitaSeed predationBotanySeed dispersalPopulationBiological dispersal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenology of crop flowering and pollinator reproduction can become asynchronous at the edge of their respective ranges. At a northern site in Peterborough County, Ontario, we evaluated offspring emergence of Cucurbita pollen specialist hoary squash bees (Eucera pruinosa) from nests in enclosures to determine their phenological synchrony with a squash crop (Cucurbita pepo). For the crop, we evaluated the percentage of bees that emerged in time to provide pollination services during the crop pollination window. For the bees, we compared the period when both male and females were present and could mate to the whole crop flowering period. We found that fewer than half the bees had emerged by the time the crop pollination window closed and only 34.1% of the flowering period of the crop could support the reproductive activities of the bees, suggesting that phenological synchrony was imperfect from the perspective of both the crop and the pollinator at this northern site.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Research in Insect ScienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207