Resource Collection by Honeybees (Apis mellifera) on Yellow Melon (Cucumis melo) Flowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the details of collection of floral resources (pollen and nectar) by honeybees (Apis mellifera) on male and hermaphrodite flowers of melon (Cucumis melo). The experiments were conducted in areas located at Embrapa Semiárido and Embrapa Produtos e Mercado, Petrolina, state of Pernambuco, in November and December 2011, with crop of a hybrid yellow 10/00 F1 melon. Honeybee colonies housed in Langstroth hives, uniform concerning the number of individuals and brood area were used. The four experimental areas (0.5 ha each), received respectively 0, 1, 2 and 3 hives, from the first day on which the hermaphrodite flowers appeared to the end of the flowering period of the melon crop. The results showed that the bees visited more the hermaphrodite than the male flowers, in order to collect the resources (pollen and nectar), in all areas where honeybee hives were placed. In general, independently from the number of hives, the resource most collected was nectar. Pollen collection occurred mainly at the first hours of the morning, while nectar was collected throughout the day.
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) | 0.001 | 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".