Characterization of “pollen balls” in commercial populations of the alfalfa leafcutting bee, <i>Megachile rotundata</i> in Canada
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
SummaryTo determine the quality of their leafcutting bees (Megachile rotundata), Canadian producers submit samples of loose cells to the Canadian Alfalfa Leafcutter Bee Cocoon Testing Centre (CCTC), Brooks, Alberta, for x-ray analysis. As part of the x-ray analysis report, the CCTC uses the category “pollen balls” to describe bee cells that have been provisioned with nectar and pollen, but in which the presence of larval development is not apparent. We determined the nature of this pollen ball category by comparing results obtained through x-ray analysis to those determined by visual examination of cut-open cells. A total of 35,241 cells were cut open and characterized as either: mouldy; broodless dry or wet provisions; collapsed egg; dead larvae (Instar 1, 2, 3 or 4); live prepupa; parasite; predator; or chalkbrood. Accuracy analysis indicated that the best agreement between the estimates of percent pollen balls obtained visually and using the x-ray method, occurred when wet and dry provision, collapsed egg, dead first or second larvae and all cell types characterized as mouldy were included in the visual categories used to define pollen balls. Overall, dry provisions constituted the highest proportion of pollen balls, followed by mouldy cells, collapsed eggs, wet provisions and finally dead first and second instar larvae. All correlation analyses between the categories making up pollen balls and the total number of pollen balls indicated that none of the single categories is consistently responsible for the overall increase in the percentage of pollen balls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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