A simple field method for manipulating ultraviolet reflectance of flowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been difficult to manipulate the ultraviolet (UV) reflectance of flowers independently of other wavelengths to study the response of insect pollinators to this trait. One effective solution is to paint flower corollas with human sunscreen that absorbs UV wavelengths. Honeybees (Apis mellifera scutellata) foraging on the strongly UV-reflecting flowers of Hypoxis hemerocallidea Fisch. & C.A. Mey. rejected flowers that had UV reflectance eliminated by a sunscreen coating, but continued to visit control flowers painted with sunscreen solution that did not contain the UV absorbing compound. The sunscreen technique could be useful for determining the response of a wide range of pollinators to the UV component of spectral reflectance in flowers and could be used to test the functional significance of UV-contrasting "nectar guide" patterns.Key words: Apis mellifera scutellata, choice experiment, flower colour, Hypoxis hemerocallidea, pollination, foraging behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".