MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132041889 · doi:10.4039/tce.2015.12

<i>Apis mellifera</i>(Hymenoptera: Apidae) drone sperm quality in relation to age, genetic line, and time of breeding

2015· article· en· W2132041889 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrée Rousseau, Valérie Fournier, Pierre Giovenazzo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre de Recherche en Sciences Animales de Deschambault
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneBiologyMatingSpermHymenopteraApidaeZoologyBeekeepingSemenHoney beeQueen (butterfly)EcologyBotanyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A honey bee ( Apis mellifera Linnaeus; Hymenoptera: Apidae) queen’s life expectancy is strongly dependent on the number of sperm she obtains by mating with drones during nuptial flights. Unexplained replacement of queens by the colony and young queens showing sperm depletions have been reported in North America, and reduced drone fertility has been a suspected cause. The aim of this study was to evaluate drone reproductive qualities during the queen-rearing season, from May to August. Drones from two different genetic lines were reared six times during the 2012 beekeeping season at our research centre in Québec (Canada). Semen volume as well as sperm number and viability were assessed at the ages of 14, 21, and 35 days. Results showed (1) a greater proportion of older drones with semen at the tip of the genitalia after eversion; (2) an influence of rearing date on semen production; and (3) no influence of drone genetic line, age or time of breeding on sperm viability. These results highlight the necessity of better understanding drone rearing and how it can be improved to ensure optimum honey-bee queen mating.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207