MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173520444 · doi:10.1603/0022-0493-93.6.1606

Application of a Modified Selection Index for Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

2000· article· en· W2173520444 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dennis van Engelsdorp, Gard W. Otis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApidaeBeekeepingBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)HymenopteraIndex (typography)Genetic gainApoideaHoney beeBiotechnologyZoologyEcologyGenetic variationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nine different genetic families of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) were compared using summed z-scores (phenotypic values) and a modified selection index (Imod). Imod values incorporated both the phenotypic scores of the different traits and the economic weightings of these traits, as determined by a survey of commercial Ontario beekeepers. Largely because of the high weight all beekeepers place on honey production, a distinct difference between line rankings based on phenotypic scores and Imod scores was apparent, thereby emphasizing the need to properly weight the traits being evaluated to select bee stocks most valuable for beekeepers. Furthermore, when beekeepers who made >10% of their income from queen and nucleus colony sales assigned relative values to the traits used in the Imod calculations, the results differed from those based on weightings assigned by honey producers. Our results underscore the difficulties the North American beekeeping industry must overcome to devise effective methods of evaluating colonies for breeding purposes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207