Peer Review #1 of "Demographic effects on fruit set in the dioecious shrub Canada buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis) (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demographic effects on fruit set in the dioecious shrub Canada buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis)The effects of pollen limitation on reproductive success in plants have been well-documented using pollen supplementation experiments.However, the role of local demographics in determining pollen limitation, particularly in terms of the additive and interactive effects of pollen availability and competition are not well known.We measured fruit set in the dioecious shrub Canada buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis) in Central Alberta, Canada to evaluate whether local demographics measured at three spatial scales (25, 50, and 100 m 2 ) affect fruit set in buffaloberry.We test whether density-dependence (population density), pollen donor (measured as male density, distance to nearest male plant and size of nearest male plant), female competitor (measured as female density and distance to nearest female plant), or the combined pollen donor and competitor hypotheses best explain natural variations in fruit set for a population of Canada buffaloberry.Support was highest for the combined pollen donor and competitor hypothesis at an intermediate spatial scale of 50 m 2 .Proportion fruit set increased with male shrub density (pollen donors) and decreased with female shrub density (pollen competitors).This illustrates that access to male shrubs within a 3.99 m radius affects pollen availability to female shrubs, while nearby females compete intra-specifically for pollen.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.205 | 0.072 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".