Behavioural Assessment of Visual Acuity in Bumblebees (<i>Bombus Impatiens</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study used previously developed techniques to measure resolution acuity in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens). Bees were required to discriminate between horizontal and vertical gratings in a Y-maze apparatus. The gratings had a mean luminance of 9 cd m(-)(2) and a Michelson contrast of 84 %. For different bees, either the horizontal or vertical grating was rewarded. Rewarded gratings were associated with a sucrose and water solution (30 % sucrose by volume) and unrewarded gratings with plain water. Acuity estimates were established at several different viewing distances over several sessions using a method of constant stimuli. Visual acuity functions were generated from the performance data, and acuity thresholds were interpolated at a performance level of 65 % correct. When corrected for viewing distance, best angular acuity obtained for horizontal and vertical gratings was 0.35 and 0.36 cycles degree(-)(1), respectively. These results are compared with those of the honeybee and discussed in the context of the bumblebee's foraging behaviour.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".