MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998346808 · doi:10.4039/ent134539-4

Effect of greenhouse polyethelene covering on activity level and photo-response of bumble bees

2002· article· en· W1998346808 on OpenAlexafffund
Lora A. Morandin, Terence M. Laverty, Robert J. Gegear, Peter G. Kevan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouseApidaeEnvironmental scienceVentilation (architecture)HorticultureHymenopteraUltraviolet lightUltravioletApoideaToxicologyBiologyBotanyGeographyMeteorologyPhysicsOpticsOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We conducted laboratory experiments assessing the relationship between commercial greenhouse polyethylene coverings and bumble bee, Bombus impatiens Cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae), activity and loss from ventilation systems. Bee activity was measured in four small greenhouses, each with a different polyethylene covering. Bee activity was quantified using photodiode tunnels mounted in the hive entrances. Contrary to commercial greenhouse experiments, there was no difference in bee activity based on covering type. There was a positive linear relationship between temperature in the experimental greenhouses and bee activity. The potential for bee loss through open ventilation systems for five covering types was quantified using a Y-maze decision box. Bees were more attracted to direct light than to light transmitted through ultraviolet (UV) blocking coverings, whereas bees were equally attracted to direct light as they were to UV-transmitting coverings. These experiments suggest that greenhouses with UV-transmitting plastics may result in less bee loss through ventilation systems.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207