Pristine™ fungicide does not pose a hazard to bumble bees in lowbush blueberry production
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
The risk assessment for plant protection products to bees has attracted a lot of attention over the past five years or more.Current estimates of exposure (e.g.EFSA, 2013) are based on 90th percentile concentrations of active substances present in pollen and nectar in the field.Although suitable for acute risks, in field concentrations are not suitable for chronic assessment especially for honey bees which feed from colony stores before making foraging flights or for larvae which are fed from in-hive food stores via nurse bees.Other areas of exposure such as to pollen and nectar in following crops or to guttation may also be better estimated by use of simple exposure models.We will present simple methods based worst case assumptions to model chronic adult and larval honey bee exposure to spray applications of plant protection products (PPP) which take into account in-hive storage of pollen and nectar and also approaches to model exposure levels in succeeding crops and guttation water.Case studies will be presented demonstrating how these worst case model exposure estimates can be used in refining the risk assessment for bees offering a robust, worst case and cost effective alternative to field studies.Having better robust modelled exposure estimates for in-hive food reserves can aid in the assessment of both single PPP stressors and interactions with multiple stressors (e.g.disease and Varroa mites).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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