Can They Keep Up? Fecundity, Pollen Fitness, and Reproductive Success in Subdioecious, Sexually Labile Cannabis Sativa L
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollen grains are male gametophytes, haploid intergeneration organisms, that function as vectors for gamete dispersal. Pollen compete to fertilize ovules, potentially influencing differential reproductive success - a key condition for microevolution. Variation in the abundance and fertility of pollen produced by plants sets the stage for intense competition among pollen-derived sperm cells for the often limited supply of ovules. To explore this, I developed a methodological framework for collecting pollen, quantifying its abundance, and characterizing its relative fitness. I applied this framework to test if differences in the sex expression of Cannabis plants could influence estimates of relative reproductive performance. Broadly, unisexual male plants produced more pollen than cosexual plants, and plants with chemically induced cosexual phenotypes had lower rates of pollen viability than naturally occurring cosexual phenotypes. My collected work aimed to answer basic science questions about male reproductive performance and the adaptive value of unisexual phenotypes in subdioecious Cannabis sativa.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".