MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138713190 · doi:10.3896/ibra.1.50.2.04

Are sperm traits of drones (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) from laying worker colonies noteworthy?

2011· article· en· W2138713190 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Apicultural Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMount Allison UniversityAnkara Universitesi
KeywordsDroneBiologySpermZoologyHoney BeesAnimal scienceToxicologyEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.ResumenLas colonias de obreras ponedoras y los pequeños zánganos procedentes de los huevos de estas obreras ponedoras son parte de la compleja biología reproductiva de las abejas melíferas. Este estudio fue llevado a cabo para comparar los caracteres del esperma de los pequeños zánganos de colonias de obreras ponedoras (LWC) con aquellos de grandes zánganos de colonias regidas por una reina (QRC). Los zánganos de QRC (221.6 mg) fueron 50.4% más pesados (P < 0.001) que los zánganos de LWR (147.3 mg). El volumen medio de eyaculado de los zánganos de QRC (1.01 μl) fue 53% mayor (P < 0.001) que el de los zánganos de LWC (0.66 μl). El número medio de espermatozoides en zánganos de QRC (7.320 × 106) fue significativamente mayor (P < 0.001) que el de los zánganos de LWC (4.425 × 106). La concentración de espermatozoides en los zánganos de QRC (7.256 × 106/μl) fue significativamente mayor (P < 0.001) que la de los zánganos de LWC (6.661 × 106/μl). Además, los zánganos de QRC (33.155 X 103/mg) produjeron 3.189 × 103 más células espermáticas por mg de masa corporal (P < 0.05) que los zánganos de LWC (29.966 × 103/mg). No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los zánganos de QRC y LWC en la viabilidad de los espermatozoides, ni en la longitud de los espermatozoides.Keywords: honey beeApis mellifera L.dronelaying workersemensperm qualitysperm viabilitysperm competition

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)0.001
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 score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.019 · 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