MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145780927 · doi:10.3896/ibra.1.52.1.11

Standard methods for American foulbrood research

2013· article· en· W2145780927 on OpenAlexaff
Dirk C. de Graaf, Adriana Mónica Alippi, Karina Antúnez, Katherine A. Aronstein, Giles E. Budge, Dieter De Koker, Lina De Smet, Douglas W. Dingman, Jay D. Evans, Leonard J. Foster, Anne Fünfhaus, Eva Garcia‐Gonzalez, Aleš Gregore, Hannelie Human, K. Daniel Murray, Bach Kim Nguyen, Lena Poppinga, Marla Spivak, Dennis van Engelsdorp, Selwyn Wilkins, Elke Genersch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Apicultural Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilVlaamse regeringUniversiteit GentFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsAmerican foulbroodBiologyBiosafetyBiotechnologyMicrobiologySpore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryAmerican foulbrood is one of the most devastating diseases of the honey bee. It is caused by the spore-forming, Gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium Paenibacillus larvae. The recent updated genome assembly and annotation for this pathogen now permits in-depth molecular studies. In this paper, selected techniques and protocols for American foulbrood research are provided, mostly in a recipe-like format that permits easy implementation in the laboratory. Topics covered include: working with Paenibacillus larvae, basic microbiological techniques, experimental infection, and “'omics” and other sophisticated techniques. Further, this chapter covers other technical information including biosafety measures to guarantee the safe handling of this pathogen.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1050.130

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations226
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Apicultural ResearchSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207