MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523675071 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542268.005

Honeybee vision and floral displays:from detection to close-up recognition

2001· book-chapter· en· W1523675071 on OpenAlexaff
Martín Giurfa, Miriam Lehrer

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2001
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingMemorizationBiologyInsectCommunicationArtificial intelligenceGeographyBotanyEcologyComputer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a social insect such as the honeybee, the survival of the colony depends on the success of its foragers. The bee optimizes its foraging success by returning to flowers of the species at which it has previously found food. This so-called flower constancy (see Chittka et al. 1999 for references) is based on the bee's capacity to learn and memorize specific flower signals (Menzel et al. 1993; Menzel & Müller 1996; Menzel 1999 and this volume) and to discriminate among different species by their different signals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations98
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207