Imidacloprid, potatoes, and honey bees in Atlantic Canada: is there a connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2000, some beekeepers in Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, experienced substantial, unexplainable honey bee colony losses. Prince Edward Island is an Atlantic Canadian province of approximately 5,684 km2 with about 261,482 hectares (46%) of its land base involved in agriculture, and about 135,600 hectares of this agricultural land is in rotation with potato crops (extrapo-lated from PEI Agricultural Statistics for 1999). About 90 % of the potato crop is treated with imidacloprid in-furrow. Some bee-keepers in France felt that imidacloprid use on sunflower crops was negatively affecting honey bee health in that country. Bee-keepers who experienced the high colony mortality on Prince Edward Island wanted this possible connection investigated as well. Their concerns were heard, and as a consequence, a residue study was done in 2001. The results did not show detectable residues of imidacloprid or two of its metabolites in bee forage plants or hive products at the limit of quantification of 2 ppb. Unexplained and substantial honey bee colony losses continue to plaque and mystify some beekeepers around the world. With increasing de-mand for honey bees for pollination of fruit crops in Atlantic Canada, this problem is a very real concern. Therefore, a compre-hensive, mulitfactor investigation was initiated in the spring of 2002. Project planning input was sought from beekeepers, and partnerships with beekeeper associations, producer organizations, individuals, corporations, institutions and governments were developed. The final version of the project includes seven major components which encompass many of the factors that beekeep-ers agree can negatively impact honey bee health. Also, these factors are in agreement with those listed in a Canadian Association
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) | 0.004 | 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".