Floral display size influences subsequent plant choice by bumble bees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The effect of floral display size (number of open flowers per plant) on subsequent plant choice by bumble bees, Bombus hypocrita sapporensis (Cockerell), was investigated using artificial inflorescences with blue or yellow flowers representing different ‘species’. Bees flew to an inflorescence of the same colour (constant flight) more often after visiting a large inflorescence. This response occurred when the nectar volume per flower was constant (larger inflorescence offered more nectar), and when nectar volume per inflorescence was constant (nectar volume per flower varied with display size). These results indicate that bees did not exhibit higher constancy after visiting larger inflorescences because they extracted more nectar than from smaller ones. Bees spent more time during visits to large vs small inflorescences. Possibly information about the last‐visited inflorescence fades from short‐term memory during longer visits, which strengthens colour constancy. Selection on floral display size is thought to balance the attraction benefits of large displays with the cost of geitonogamy. However, in habitats with several competing plant species, selection for colour constancy may provide a further reason for selection to favour large floral displays.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".