MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101307681 · doi:10.1038/nature15757

Widespread exploitation of the honeybee by early Neolithic farmers

2015· article· en· W2101307681 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie Roffet‐Salque, Martine Regert, Richard P. Evershed, Alan K. Outram, Lucy Cramp, Orestes Decavallas, Julie Dunne, Pascale Gerbault, Simona Mileto, Sigrid Mirabaud, Mirva Pääkkönen, Jessica Smyth, Lucija Šoberl, Helen L. Whelton, Alfonso Alday Ruiz, Henrik Asplund, Marta Bartkowiak, Eva Bayer-Niemeier, Lotfi Belhouchet, Federico Bernardini, Mihael Budja, Gabriel Cooney, Miriam Cubas, Ed M. Danaher, Mariana Diniz, László Domboróczki, Cristina Fabbri, Jesús Emilio González Urquijo, Jean Guilaine, Slimane Hachi, Barrie Hartwell, Daniela Hofmann, Isabel Hohle, Juan José Ibáñez, Necmi Karul, Farid Kherbouche, Jacinta Kiely, Kostas Kotsakis, Friedrich Lueth, J. P. Mallory, Claire Manen, Arkadiusz Marciniak, Brigitte Maurice-Chabard, Martin A. Mc Gonigle, Simone Mulazzani, Mehmet Özdoğan, Olga Perić, Slaviša Perić, Jörg Petrasch, Anne-Marie Pétrequin, Pierre Pétrequin, Ulrike Poensgen, C. Joshua Pollard, François Poplin, Giovanna Radi, Peter F. Stadler, Harald Stäuble, Nenad Tasić, Dusanka Urem-Kotsou, Jasna Vuković, Fintan Walsh, Alasdair Whittle, Sabine Wolfram, Lydia Zapata-Peña, Jamel Zoughlami

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilAgence Nationale de la RechercheMinistère de la Culture et de la CommunicationMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la RechercheWellcome TrustSight Research UKLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsBeeswaxPrehistoryRoyal jellyContext (archaeology)BeekeepingRange (aeronautics)GeographyBiologyHoney beeAgricultureArchaeologyWaxEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations219
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207