MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306720141

Efecto de tres dietas energético-proteicas en la población y producción de miel de colonias de abejas melíferas (Apis mellifera)

2018· article· en· W4306720141 on OpenAlexaff
Sergio Saldivar frausto

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBiologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study was to compare the population, weight and honey production of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies fed with three different energy-protein diets based on a feed supplement made with brewer's yeast and pollen, in combination with 55% high fructose corn syrup (JMAF), or sucrose syrup (JA), or inverted sucrose syrup (JAI). Ninety colonies equalized in terms of population size, food stores and queen origin and age were used. All colonies were fed the protein supplement, but 30 of them were fed JMAF, 30 JA and 30 JAI. The adult bee population, capped brood area, weight and honey production of the colonies was determined at 27, 49 and 76 days after they were established and fed with the diets. Colonies fed JMAF were significantly heavier than those fed JA and JAI, between which there were no differences. JMAF-fed colonies produced significantly more honey (35.8 ± 3.35 kg) than those fed JA (28.2 ± 2.65) and JAI (24.8 ± 2.70 kg), between which there were no differences. These results suggest that the use of JMAF in combination with a protein supplement to stimulate honey bee colonies represents a more efficient option than the use of JAI and JAI with protein supplementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207