Requeening queenright honey bee colonies with queen cells in honey supers
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
Many Canadian beekeepers replace a subset of their honey bee queens annually. However, introducing a new queen to a honey bee colony is a management practice with a high degree of uncertainty. Despite the consensus that it is most effective to introduce queens to queenless colonies, some commercial beekeepers claim success with introducing queen cells into the honey super of queenright colonies. We tested the success rate of this practice by introducing queen cells to 100 queenright colonies in southern Alberta during a honey flow. The genotypes of the resultant offspring drones were determined using the microsatellite marker A76 to identify their laying queen mothers. Our results show that new queens successfully supersede original queens in 6% of queenright colonies, suggesting that the practice does not result in the new queen taking over leadership in most colonies. Additionally, supersedure by daughter queens is more common (13%) than new queen supersedure when introducing queen cells to queenright colonies during a honey flow. However, there could be a benefit to the practice of requeening queenright colonies with queen cells in honey supers if the colonies that accepted a new queen (whether a daughter of or unrelated to the old queen) were colonies with a failing queen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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