Diversity and human perceptions of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in Southeast Asian megacities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urbanization requires the conversion of natural land cover to cover with human-constructed elements and is considered a major threat to biodiversity. Bee populations, globally, are under threat; however, the effect of rapid urban expansion in Southeast Asia on bee diversity has not been investigated. Given the pressing issues of bee conservation and urbanization in Southeast Asia, coupled with complex factors surrounding human-bee coexistence, we investigated bee diversity and human perceptions of bees in four megacities. We sampled bees and conducted questionnaires at three different site types in each megacity: a botanical garden, central business district, and peripheral suburban areas. Overall, the mean species richness and abundance of bees were significantly higher in peripheral suburban areas than central business districts; however, there were no significant differences in the mean species richness and abundance between botanical gardens and peripheral suburban areas or botanical gardens and central business districts. Urban residents were unlikely to have seen bees but agreed that bees have a right to exist in their natural environment. Residents who did notice and interact with bees, even though being stung, were more likely to have positive opinions towards the presence of bees in cities.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".