MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910655061 · doi:10.1111/imb.12567

The honey bee gut microbiota: strategies for study and characterization

2019· review· en· W2910655061 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Nastasa, Abigail Chapman, Waldan K. Kwong, Leonard J. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueInsect Molecular Biology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacsConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaGenome Canada
KeywordsBiologyGut floraHoney beeMicrobiomeGut microbiomeMetagenomicsPollinatorEcologyZoologyBioinformaticsPollinationImmunologyGeneticsPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gut microbiota research is an emerging field that improves our understanding of the ecological and functional dynamics of gut environments. The honey bee gut microbiota is a highly rewarding community to study, as honey bees are critical pollinators of many crops for human consumption and produce valuable commodities such as honey and wax. Most significantly, unique characteristics of the Apis mellifera gut habitat make it a valuable model system. This review discusses methods and pipelines used in the study of the gut microbiota of Ap. mellifera and closely related species for four main purposes: identifying microbiota taxonomy, characterizing microbiota genomes (microbiome), characterizing microbiota-microbiota interactions and identifying functions of the microbial community in the gut. The purpose of this contribution is to increase understanding of honey bee gut microbiota, to facilitate bee microbiota and microbiome research in general and to aid design of future experiments in this growing field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsect Molecular BiologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207