Factors Affecting Efficiency of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as Pollinators of Alfalfa in Southern Alberta1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".