Does the Honeybee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Reduce the Blooming Period of Canola?
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
Abstract The aim of this study was to determine if and how the honeybee reduces the blooming period of canola ( Brassica napus ). Colonies were installed in different fields of canola in the Chaudiere‐Appalaches (two replicates) and Quebec City (one replicate) regions to create a density gradient of zero to three colonies per hectare. To calculate the blooming period under these conditions, 10 labelled plants were caged in the field, out of the reach of pollinators, and 10 others were labelled in the field and exposed to foragers. The number of flowers found on each plant was recorded daily. This study also aims at demonstrating that the canola plant will produce new flowers as long as it does not reach its maximum carrying capacity, thereby extending the blooming period. To simulate the fall of unfertilized flowers, a predetermined number of flowers from 20 randomly selected plants in one of the replicates were cut off every day. The plant, when it reaches its maximum carrying capacity, stops producing new flowers. With three colonies per hectare, the blooming period was reduced by 3.8 days, or 17 % compared with in the absence of pollinators. Because of the efficient pollen transfer to the stigma, the honeybees do not only cause the flower to live for a shorter period of time, but they also bring about a decrease in the number of flowers produced by the plant, thereby reducing the duration of blooming period.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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