MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319373237 · doi:10.3896/ibra.1.49.2.04

The effect of requeening in late July on honey bee colony development on the Northern Great Plains of North America after removal from an indoor winter storage facility

2010· article· en· W2319373237 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Apicultural Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroodBiologyPopulationWorker beeHoney beeAnimal scienceDemographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryThe effect of late summer requeening on the subsequent development of honey bee colonies during autumn (Harris, 2008b), and when confined in an indoor wintering facility (Harris, 2009) was extended with observations on sealed brood production, colony size and colony demographics every twelve days from 11 March until 14 August after they were removed from their winter quarters. Average adult populations declined for the first 48 days, and then recovered over the next 24 to 36 days once adult emergence consistently exceeded worker mortality. Rates of mortality for wintered workers were similar to those recorded for bees emerging in April, May, June, July and most of August. The last surviving bees from worker cohorts marked in September and October 1976 died between 3 June and 15 June 1977. Requeening treatment effects were quite variable and not statistically different. Requeened colonies were, however, generally larger than those headed by older queens when the experiment was terminated on 14 August and these colonies were killed and counted. The nine largest colonies belonged to the requeened treatments and contained on average 8,637 more bees (range 85 to 17,735) than the largest colony that had not been requeened. One of the requeened colonies was estimated to have contained slightly more than 80,000 adult bees at its peak population on 9 July.ResumenEl efecto de la reposición tardía estival de reinas en el desarrollo posterior de las colonias de abejas durante otoño (Harris, 2008b), y cuando son confinadas en una instalación interior invernal (Harris, 2009) se ha ampliado con observaciones acerca de la producción de cría operculada, tamaño de la colonia y demografía de las colonias cada doce días desde el 11 de Marzo hasta el 14 de Agosto después de que fueran retiradas de su almacenamiento de invierno. La población media de adultos descendió durante los primeros 48 días, entonces se recuperó en los siguientes 24 a 36 días una vez que la emergencia de adultos excedió la mortalidad de las obreras. Las tasas de mortalidad de obreras de invierno fueron similares a aquellas observadas para obreras que emergieron en Abril, Mayo, Junio, Julio y parte de Agosto. Las últimas obreras supervivientes de cohortes de obreras marcadas en Septiembre y Octubre 1976 murieron entre el 3 y el 15 de Junio de 1977. Los efectos de tratamiento de reposición de reinas fueron variables y no diferentes estadísticamente. Las colonias con reposición de reinas fueron en cualquier caso, generalmente más grandes que aquellas gobernadas por reinas viejas cuando el experimento se terminó el 14 de Agosto y las colonias fueron eliminadas y contadas. Las nueve colonias más grandes pertenecieron a aquellas tratadas con cambio de reina y contuvieron de media 8.637 abejas más (rango desde 85 a 17.735) que las colonia más grande que no fue repuesta con una nueva reina. Una de las colonias con reina repuesta se estimó que había contenido algo más de 80.000 abejas adultas en su pico de población en el 9 de Julio.Keywords: requeeningcolony developmentwinter storage facilitymortality ratesApis mellifera

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.272 · 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