Observations on Colony Size in Bumblebees (<i>Bombus</i> Spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(excerpt) One factor to consider when attempting to rear bumblebees (Bombus spp.) for pollination of crops is potential colony size. Species which emerge from hibernation early and continue to produce workers late in the summer or early fall are likely to have larger colonies. In contrast, Arctic species such as Bombus polaris Curtis and hyperboreus Schonherr may produce only one brood prior to the sexual brood. Richards (1973) reported that colonies of polaris are smaller than colonies of species from lower latitudes in North America. Hobbs (1967) estimated 772 as a maximum colony sue for huntii Greene in southern Canada and over 3,000 bees per colony, based on data from Medler (1959), for huntii found in New Mexico. B. rnedius Cresson in Mexico may reach the same number (Michener and LaBerge, 1954). Dias (1958) reported a potential of 3,056 incarum Franklin from Brazil. Thus, it would appear that under optimum conditions several species from the western hemisphere have sufficient potential colony size for successful semi-domestication for crop pollination.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".