MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415430119 · doi:10.21083/jeso.v155i.8003

Observations of wild bees foraging on wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) flowers – first records and future research directions

2024· article· W4415430119 on OpenAlexafffund
Briann Dorin, Sheila R. Colla

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEntomological Society of CanadaYork University
KeywordsVitis viniferaForagingWineWine grapeVineyard

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollinator-independent crops are not necessarily crops in which pollinators do not visit their flowers.Conversely, while a crop may not benefit from pollinators visiting their flowers in terms of crop production, pollinators may still use the pollen as a food resource.While pollinators include several taxa, bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes) hold a significant role in the pollination of both wild and crop plants as they forage for pollen and nectar to meet their nutrient requirements (Kral- O'Brien et al. 2022).With documented declines for several bee species globally (Vanbergen and the Insect Pollinators Initiative 2013; Goulson et al. 2015), understanding the plant resources used by bees is important for directing conservation actions.Agriculture-dominated landscapes may hold heightened risks for bees due to threats including habitat loss, pesticide exposure, and interactions with non-native species (Vanbergen and the Insect Pollinators Initiative 2013).Thus, it is especially important to understand the resources used by bees in agricultural lands and the potential benefits (e.g., nutritional quality) or risks (e.g., pesticide exposure) of foraging on crop flowers for pollen.Globally, 60% of food production comes from crops that are pollinator-independent, with 28 of the leading food crops showing no benefit from animal pollination (Klein et al. 2007).This represents a significant amount of land where bees may have limited food resources available to them.Very little is known about the role of pollinator-independent crops as a pollen resource for bees (reviewed in Kral- O'Brien et al. 2022).Most research on this topic comes from pollen collected from European honey bees (Apis mellifera L., 1758) (Saunders 2018; Kral-O'Brien et al. 2022); thus, more observational studies are needed to understand the breadth of bees that may use these food resources.The wine grape, Vitis vinifera L., 1753 (Vitaceae), is a pollinator-independent crop for which we lack information about use by bees.With ~7.4 mha of global area planted with commercial grapevines (OIV 2019), more research is needed to understand to what extent bees use grapevine pollen and whether this pollen usage differs by variety or species.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Entomological Society of OntarioSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207