Are sperm traits of drones (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) from laying worker colonies noteworthy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SummaryLaying worker colonies and small drones derived from the eggs of laying workers are a part of the complex reproductive biology of honey bees. This study was carried out to compare sperm traits of small drones from laying worker colonies (LWC) with those of large drones from queenright colonies (QRC). The drones from QRC (221.6 mg) were 50.4% heavier (P < 0.001) than the drones from LWC (147.3 mg). The mean volume of ejaculate of drones from QRC (1.01 μl) was 53% larger (P < 0.001) than that of drones from LWC (0.66 μl). The mean sperm number in drones from QRC (7.320 × 106) was significantly higher (P < 0.001) than that of drones from LWC (4.425 × 106). Sperm concentration of drones from QRC (7.256 × 106/μl) was significantly higher (P < 0.001) than that of drones from LWC (6.661 × 106/μl). In addition, the drones from QRC (33.155 × 103/μg) produced 3.189 × 103 more sperm cells per mg body mass (P < 0.05) than the drones from LWC (29.966 × 103/mg). No significant differences were found between drones from QRC and LWC in sperm viability and sperm length.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".