Using Reports of Bee Mortality in the Field to Calibrate Laboratory-Derived Pesticide Risk Indices
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
Mounting evidence suggests that pollinators worldwide are experiencing dramatic population declines, and exposure to pesticides is one of the factors that can account for this. By making use of a database containing more than two decades of honey bee (Apis mellifera) hive poisoning incidents from the United Kingdom (Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme [WIIS]) and corresponding pesticide use surveys, we attempted to explain honey bee poisoning incidents in the field using models derived from pesticide use information, laboratory-generated bee toxicity data (defined as a hazard ratio; application rate divided by LD(50)), and physico-chemical properties of the applied pesticides. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between honey bee poisoning incidents in the field and these parameters. In analyzing models with multiple dimensions, we selected the best model by the best subset method, an iterative method based on maximum likelihood estimation, and Akaike's information criterion. Results suggested that the size of the area treated and hazard ratios calculated from application rates and oral or contact toxicity (but the latter especially) can be used to predict the likelihood that honey bee mortality will occur. Model predictions also suggest that some insecticides carry an extreme risk for bees, despite the lack of documented incidents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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