Bibliographic record
Abstract
A review is given of pollination systems in the palm family (Arecaceae). Pollination studies of 149 species (6% of the total number) in 60 genera (33% of the total number) are reviewed. The majority of these studies (75%) are of Neotropical palms. In the sample of 149 species, approximately 52% are beetle-pollinated, 27% bee-pollinated, 7% fly-pollinated, 5% thrips pollinated, 5% wind pollinated, 3% moth-pollinated, and 1% mammal-pollinated. A few other species may be bird-pollinated. Adaptations of inflorescences and flowers to pollinators are not readily apparent except for a general tendency for bee-/fly-pollinated species to have longer, open inflorescences and beetle-pollinated species to have shorter, condensed inflorescences. Classical pollination syndromes are not useful in describing, classifying, or predicting palm pollination systems because of numerous exceptions. The degree to which palm pollination systems may be considered specialized or generalized is unclear. There appear to have been numerous, bidirectional shifts in palms between beetle pollination and bee/fly pollination, and less often shifts to other pollinators. Beetle-pollinated inflorescences are usually visited by bees, and bee-pollinated inflorescences are usually visited by beetles. It seems likely that many species of palm, irrespective of pollinator, have their inflorescences used as brood-sites by beetles.
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) | 0.000 | 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".