MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386145664 · doi:10.22543/0090-0222.2052

Discriminations of Color and Pattern on Artificial Flowers by Male and Female Bumble Bees, <i>Bombus Impatiens</i> (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

2018· article· en· W4386145664 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Church, Catherine Plowright, Diana Loyer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Great Lakes Entomologist · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyApidaeForageHymenopteraZoologyHoney BeesBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the performance of male bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) in color and pattern discriminations and compared it to that of female bees. Bees were trained to forage from rewarding (S+) and unrewarding (S-) artificial flowers which differed in color (blue vs yellow) or pattern (e.g., concen­tric vs radial). Learning of the discrimination by the bees was then assessed by examining choice proportions of different flower types while none of the flowers offered reward. Color discriminations were made with 98% accuracy by the males, and the choice proportion was no different for females. Pattern discriminations were very poor or nonexistent for males but significantly better for females, especially in one of three pattern discriminations (radial vs concentric patterns).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Great Lakes EntomologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207