MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021848303 · doi:10.4236/oje.2013.34032

Genotype and task influence stinging response thresholds of honeybee (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) workers of African and European descent

2013· article· en· W2021848303 on OpenAlexaff
José L. Uribe-Rubio, Tatiana Petukhova, Ernesto Guzmán‐Novoa

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Ecology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorker beeStimulus (psychology)ZoologyBiologyHoney beeGenotypeHoney BeesAculeataGuard (computer science)StingToxicologyHymenopteraEcologyPsychologyEngineeringGeneticsCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207