MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1808410216 · doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003318

Single bumblebee leaving colony for first time seeks company

2015· article· en· W1808410216 on OpenAlexafffund
C.M. Walker, Catherine Plowright

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBumblebeePreferenceNest (protein structural motif)CommunicationPsychologyZoologyBiologySocial psychologyEcologyPollinatorPollinationMathematicsPollenStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For social learning to occur in bumblebees, individuals must first be drawn to the relevant stimuli from which to learn. Here we investigate whether bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) leaving their colony for the first time are drawn to other live bees. In Experiment 1, flower-naïve workers were tested for their preferences of stimuli presented in a radial maze. Live bees, artificial floral patterns and black disks were presented at two different densities (1 vs 6 objects). A marked preference for the six live bees was obtained. Experiment 2 isolated the variable of movement: black disks vs dead bees were presented on a platform that was either stationary or rotating. A preference for moving over stationary displays was obtained, as well as a preference for displays comprising bees rather than disks. Flower-naïve bumblebees leave their nest equipped with behavioural tendencies that can serve to initiate new social encounters from which to learn.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.101 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehaviourSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207