How to model honeybee population dynamics: stage structure and seasonality
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
Western honeybees (Apis Mellifera) serve extremely important roles in our ecosystem and economics as they are responsible for pollinating $ 215 billion dollars annually over the world. Unfortunately, honeybee population and their colonies have been declined dramatically. The purpose of this article is to explore how we should model honeybee population with age structure and validate the model using empirical data so that we can identify different factors that lead to the survival and healthy of the honeybee colony. Our theoretical study combined with simulations and data validation suggests that the proper age structure incorporated in the model and seasonality are important for modeling honeybee population. Specifically, our work implies that the model assuming that (1) the adult bees are survived from the egg population rather than the brood population; and (2) seasonality in the queen egg laying rate, give the better fit than other honeybee models. The related theoretical and numerical analysis of the most fit model indicate that (a) the survival of honeybee colonies requires a large queen egg-laying rate and smaller values of the other life history parameter values in addition to proper initial condition; (b) both brood and adult bee populations are increasing with respect to the increase in the egg-laying rate and the decreasing in other parameter values; and (c) seasonality may promote/suppress the survival of the honeybee colony.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it