Consumption of Three Dry Pollen Substitutes in Commercial Apiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The palatability tests were done in commercial apiaries in early spring 2004. In this trial, three different feeds, Feedbee®, TLS Bee Feed and Bee-Pro® were fed to 153 colonies in 12 bee yards for 6 weeks (March 25th - May 6th) in southern Ontario. Two methods of feeding were used: 1) No-choice feeding, where each yard received only one of the three feeds, and 2) Choice feeding, where each yard received all three experimental feeds. The mean feed intake (g/colony/6 weeks) of Feedbee® was 960 g and 883 g for the first and second feeding methods respectively. These amounts were significantly greater (p>0.05) than for the other two feeds. The amount of Bee-Pro® consumed (g/colony/6 weeks) in the two feeding methods was 224 g and 106 g and for the TLS Bee Feed, 115 g and 52 g respectively. These results indicate that Feedbee® in powder/dry form is highly palatable to honey bees. The results show that it is well accepted by bees during the shortage or absence of natural pollen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".