Genotype and task influence stinging response thresholds of honeybee (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) workers of African and European descent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stinging response thresholds of individual European and Africanized worker honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) were analyzed. Workers of each genotype performing defense (guard and soldier bees) and non-defense (nest and forager bees) associated tasks were collected and exposed to an electric stimulus of 0.5 mA, and the time they took to sting a leather substrate was recorded. Africanized bees had significant lower thresholds of response than European bees. Guards and soldiers were faster to sting than nest and forager bees for the Africanized genotype, whereas for the European genotype, guards stung significantly faster than bees of the other three task groups. This is the first study that shows that individual bees specialized in two defensive tasks also have a lower response threshold for stinging. Our results fit a model of division of labor based on differences in response thresholds to stimuli among workers of different genotypes and task groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".