Examining the public's awareness of bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidae: Anthophila) conservation in Canada
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
Abstract Understanding the general public's knowledge and perceptions of an issue can help drive action on the part of decision‐makers. Such understanding is critical when decision‐makers are faced with multiple stakeholders, which is the case with biodiversity conservation issues. We surveyed the Canadian general public using a telephone questionnaire to assess the level of knowledge and perceptions of native wild bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) health and conservation. We found that the general level of bee knowledge among participants was low. Half of participants named the non‐native managed European honeybee ( Apis mellifera Linnaeus 1758) as a wild bee, native to Canada. Over two‐thirds of participants stated the provisioning of ecosystem services (ES) is the most important reason to conserve bees. Half of participants thought the Canadian federal and provincial government should be principally responsible for bee conservation. One‐third of participants perceived no personal barriers to bee conservation and nearly one‐quarter stated they did not know how to help bee conservation efforts. Our results highlight that scientific researchers can play an important role in outreach and education and environmental non‐governmental organizations (ENGOs) can take an active lobbying role at the provincial and federal levels with respect to bee conservation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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