MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625030017

Factors Affecting Efficiency of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as Pollinators of Alfalfa in Southern Alberta1

2016· article· en· W2625030017 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. A. Hobbs, C. E. Lilly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of agricultural science/Canadian Journal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNectarPollenBiologyPollinatorApidaeApoideaPollinationHymenopteraAgronomyAculeataBotanyHorticultureHoney beeHoney BeesBumblebee
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In studies on pollination of alfalfa by honey bees near Lethbridge, Alberta, in 1951 and 1952, honey bees preferred many other entomophilous plants to alfalfa as sources of pollen Although the experimental field was isolated from competing crops and competing growth was appreciably reduced both years, the honey bees did not gather pollen from alfalfa until the preferred sources had ceased to flower, then it was so late in the season that few of the tripped flowers had time to produce mature seed Moreover, honey bees that were caged in alfalfa plots for 33 days did not gather pollen from alfalfa when released. Although accidental tripping of alfalfa by nectar-collecting honey bees is a major factor in the commercial production of seed in Utah and California, it is a minor one in southern Alberta because (a) the percentage of flowers tripped is lower than at more southern latitudes, probably because temperature and humidity conditions are not so conducive to automatic tripping, (b) fewer honey bees utilize ...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.178 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of agricultural science/Canadian Journal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207