Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Bumblebees are important pollinators in North America and are attacked by a range of parasites that impact their fitness; however, few studies have investigated the extent or causes of parasitism in North America. 2. This study used a 2‐year multi‐site survey of bumblebee parasitism to ask: (i) how common are parasitoid conopid flies and the internal parasites Crithidia bombi and Nosema bombi in Massachusetts; and (ii) what factors are correlated with parasitism? 3. Infection rates by all three parasites were higher in this study than previously documented in North America. Overall, conopids infected 0–73% of bees in each sample, C. bombi infected 0–82% of bees, and N. bombi infected 0–32%. 4. Conopid flies infected female bees more than males and intermediate‐sized bees more than large or small bees. Crithidia bombi infection rates were higher in certain bee species and sites, and exhibited a unimodal pattern of prevalence over time. Nosema bombi parasitism was higher in male than female bees. 5. Infection by N. bombi in two rare bumblebee species was higher than expected based on parasitism rates of common bee species but C. bombi infection was lower. If high prevalence of N. bombi in these bumblebee species is common, parasitism may be a potential cause of their decline. 6. Given the documented effects of these parasites, the high levels of infection may affect bee populations in Massachusetts and threaten the stability of their valuable ecosystem services.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".