Observation of Genetic Gain with Instrumental Insemination of Honeybee Queens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) is part of one of the greatest challenges for the beekeeping industry's genetic selection programs due to specific characteristics of their reproduction. Several techniques for supervising honeybee mating with relative effective control have been developed over the years to allow honeybee selection. As part of this project, we compared the genetic gains for several colony performance traits, obtained using the BLUP-animal method, according to the selection pressure applied in controlled reproduction (directed fertilization versus instrumental insemination). Our results show similar genetic gains for hygienic behavior and honey production between colonies whether queens were fertilized naturally or via instrumental insemination, as well as similar or lower genetic gains for colonies with queens inseminated for spring development. In addition, we noticed greater fragility in queens following insemination. These findings show that instrumental insemination is an effective tool for reproductive control in genetic selection and for estimating breeding values more precisely. However, this technique does not result in queens of superior genetic quality for commercial purposes.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it