A Transferrable Change in Preferences of Floral Patterns by Bumblebees through Reward Reversal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the use behavioral transfer across perceptually similar stimuli in bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) and addresses whether foraging judgments about a floral stimulus can change in a way that contradicts direct previous experience with that stimulus. Twenty bees from each of four colonies underwent discrimination training of stimuli placed in a radial maze. Bees were trained to discriminate between two corresponding object and photograph pairs of artificial flowers, where one object and its corresponding photo were rewarding, while another object and its corresponding photo were unrewarding. Following discrimination training, one stimulus from each pair (either the object or the photo) was removed. The predictive reward values of the remaining stimuli were either switched for one group or stayed the same for another. Subsequent testing on the removed stimuli revealed foraging preferences to shift based on experience with the other stimulus in the group. For instance, bees treated a previously unrewarding object as rewarding after learning that the corresponding photograph had become rewarding. Foraging decisions depend not only on previous experience with stimuli, but also category membership.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".