Data from: Selection on Polemonium brandegeei (Polemoniaceae) flowers under hummingbird pollination: in opposition, parallel, or independent of selection by hawkmoths?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particular floral phenotypes are often associated with specific groups of pollinators. However, flowering plants are often visited, and may be effectively pollinated by more than one type of animal. Therefore, a major outstanding question in floral biology asks: what is the nature of selection on floral traits when pollinators are diverse? This study examined how hummingbirds selected on the floral traits of Polemonium brandegeei, a species pollinated by both hummingbirds and hawkmoths. In array populations of P. brandegeei, we measured pollen movement, and female (seeds set) and male (seeds sired) fitness under hummingbird pollination. We then compared the patterns of selection by hummingbirds with our previous study examining selection by hawkmoths. We documented contrasting selection on sex organ positioning through female function, with hummingbirds selecting for stigmas exserted beyond the anthers and hawkmoths selecting for stigmas recessed below the anthers. Furthermore, hummingbirds selected for longer and wider corolla tubes, and hawkmoths selected for narrower corolla tubes. Therefore, contrasting selection by hawkmoths and hummingbirds may account for variation in sex organ arrangements and corolla dimensions in P. brandegeei. We documented how floral traits under selection by multiple pollinators can result in either an intermediate “compromise” between selective pressures (sex organs) or apparent specialization (corolla tube length) to one pollinator.
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) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".