MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157555066 · doi:10.1007/s13592-021-00841-1

Protection of honeybees and other pollinators: one global study

2021· article· en· W3157555066 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApidologie · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinatorBiologyPollinationEcologyHabitatFood securityCompetition (biology)InsectPollenAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insect populations are declining globally. Most crops rely on insect pollination, putting food security at risk. Honeybees are important pollinators and have been used widely in public awareness campaigns. This study surveyed countries about the status of their pollinators and programmes for monitoring and management. Responses were received from 273 persons from 108 countries. Apis mellifera was reported by nearly all countries. Many countries (72%) routinely collect honeybee data, and populations are stable or increasing (77% of countries). Other pollinators receive less attention, although their populations are dwindling in most (70%) countries. Conservation and protection are more commonly practiced for honeybees. Most threats, such as habitat loss and pesticides, are shared by all pollinators. Therefore, conservation measures to decrease these threats would be efficient, provided that competition among species is avoided. Monitoring of pollinator populations should be increased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.096 · 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