Does the Flower Constancy of Bumble Bees Reflect Foraging Economics?
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 We examined the effects of floral reward level and spatial arrangement on the propensity of bumble bees to exhibit flower constancy. In three separate experiments, we compared the flower constancy of bees on dimorphic arrays of blue and yellow flowers that differed either in reward concentration, reward volume, or inter‐flower distance. Overall, flower choice patterns varied among bees, ranging from random selection to complete constancy. When flowers contained greater reward volumes and were spaced farther apart, bees showed less flower constancy and more moves to closely neighbouring flowers. Changes in reward concentration had no effect on flower constancy; however, more dilute rewards produced shorter flight times between flowers. In addition, there was a strong positive relationship between degree of flower constancy and net rate of energy gain when flowers were spaced farther apart, indicating that constant bees were more economic foragers than inconstant bees. Together, these results support the view that the flower constancy of pollinators reflects an economic foraging decision.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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