Thoracic vibrations in stingless bees (<i>Melipona seminigra</i>):resonances of the thorax influence vibrations associated with flight but not those associated with sound production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bees generate thoracic vibrations with their indirect flight muscles in various behavioural contexts. The main frequency component of non-flight vibrations, during which the wings are usually folded over the abdomen, is higher than that of thoracic vibrations that drive the wing movements for flight. So far, this has been concluded from an increase in natural frequency of the oscillating system in association with the wing adduction. In the present study, we measured the thoracic oscillations in stingless bees during stationary flight and during two types of non-flight behaviour, annoyance buzzing and forager communication, using laser vibrometry. As expected, the flight vibrations met all tested assumptions for resonant oscillations: slow build-up and decay of amplitude; increased frequency following reduction of the inertial load; and decreased frequency following an increase of the mass of the oscillating system. Resonances, however, do not play a significant role in the generation of non-flight vibrations. The strong decrease in main frequency at the end of the pulses indicates that these were driven at a frequency higher than the natural frequency of the system. Despite significant differences regarding the main frequency components and their oscillation amplitudes, the mechanism of generation is apparently similar in annoyance buzzing and forager vibrations. Both types of non-flight vibration induced oscillations of the wings and the legs in a similar way. Since these body parts transform thoracic oscillations into airborne sounds and substrate vibrations, annoyance buzzing can also be used to study mechanisms of signal generation and transmission potentially relevant in forager communication under controlled conditions.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".