MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120635563 · doi:10.1093/jhered/esi038

Paternal Effects on the Defensive Behavior of Honeybees

2005· article· en· W2120635563 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsBeef Farmers of OntarioUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDominance (genetics)ZoologyEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The defensive behavior of 52 hybrid honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies from four sets of crosses was studied and compared with that of European and Africanized bee colonies. Colonies containing F(1) hybrid workers were obtained through reciprocal crosses between European and Africanized bees. The total number of stings deposited by workers in a moving leather patch in 1 min was recorded. In each of the four sets of crosses, bees from hybrid colonies of Africanized paternity left more stings in leather patches than bees from hybrid colonies of European paternity. Results strongly suggest paternal effects of African origin increasing the defensive behavior of hybrid colonies. Although some degree of dominance was observed for high-defensive behavior in one of the four sets of crosses involving European paternity, most of the dominance effects reported in the literature appear to be the result of paternal effects. Several hypotheses to explain this phenomenon, as well as the implications of these effects on the fitness and breeding of honeybees are discussed.

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 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 score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.175 · 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