Beekeeping of Indigenous Honeybees, Honey Production Practices and Policy Option for Their Conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Honey has been under use in human civilization since prehistoric period of Vedas, Purans, Ramayan and Chark Sanghita. Honey has a medicinal value as well as nutritional value. It is very useful for human health. The beekeeping in United States, Canada, Australia has achieved out-standing success as an industry but in India people do not take interest in beekeeping from commercial point of view but only for their routine use. Before 1953 attention to bee-keeping was paid only by the state government but in the same year, all India Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), started to pay attentionto it. Now-a-days bee-keeping industry isnational wide and a good source of cottage industry. Apiculture can be raised to the status of a viable occupation in tropical climate because the tropical countries are very rich in bee fauna. Development of apiculture/bee-keeping may be helpful in agriculture and may contribute for providing nutrition and employment to rural population and may help in raising the economic status of people. Inthe commercial point of view two indigenous species of honey bees viz., Apis cerana, Apis mellefra are best for honey production. Different channels are involved in marketing of honey like producer, retailer, consumer. Beewax is a very useful by-product of bee keeping industry. Enemies of the bees harm the colony in different ways. So the population of wild honey bees has reduced in the sample honey bees habitats. It is necessary to make policies for the conservation of honey bees and policy implication should be followed honestly so that the production of honey could be increased.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".