MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143503611 · doi:10.4039/n09-056

Nesting biology and subsociality in<i>Ceratina calcarata</i>(Hymenoptera: Apidae)

2010· article· en· W2143503611 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sandra M. Rehan, Miriam H. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyNest (protein structural motif)BroodPhenologyZoologyHymenopteraEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To evaluate sociality in small carpenter bees ( Ceratina Latreille), we studied the life history and nesting biology of a common eastern North American species, Ceratina ( Zadontomerus ) calcarata Robertson. Pan-trap and nest collections throughout the active season (May to September 2006) were used to assess C. calcarata’s seasonal phenology and nesting biology in southern Ontario. Adults overwintered in their natal nests. Males emerged in early May and occupied preexisting hollows in twigs and stems. Females emerged from hibernacula 2 weeks later, founding new nests. Nest founding and provisioning occurred throughout the spring; females remained with developing brood through the summer. Complete nests contained, on average, 6.9 offspring, with egg-to-adult development averaging 46 days. Ceratina calcarata is subsocial rather than solitary: mothers are long-lived and nest-loyal, and care for offspring from egg to adulthood. Subsociality is found in all behaviourally classified small carpenter bees, while some species cross the boundary into social life, making Ceratina an important genus for the study of the transition between solitary and social life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations136
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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