Comparative bioacoustical studies on flight and buzzing of neotropical bees
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of bees is typically accompanied by the humming sound of their flight. Bees of several tribes are also capable of pollen collecting by vibration, known as buzzing behaviour, which produces a buzzing sound, different from the flight sound. An open question is whether bee species have species-specific buzzing patterns or frequencies dependent of the bees' morphology or are capable to adjust their indivudual buzzing sound to optimize pollen return. The investigations to approach this issue were performed in northeastern Brazil near Recife in the state of Pernambuco. We present a new field method using a commercially available portable system able to record the sound of bees during flight and buzzing at flowers. Further, we describe computer linguistical algorithms to analyse the frequency of the recorded sound sequences. With this method, we recorded the flight and buzzing sequences of 59 individual bees out of 12 species visiting the flowers of Solanum stramoniifolium and S. paniculatum. Our findings demonstrate a typical frequency range for the sounds produced by the bees of a species. Our statistical analysis shows a strong correlation of bee size and flight frequency and demonstrate that bee species use different frequency patterns.
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.
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 it