MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214059135 · doi:10.1017/s0031182021001827

Honey bees with a drinking problem: potential routes of <i>Nosema ceranae</i> spore transmission

2021· article· en· W3214059135 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueParasitology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaProject Apis m.
KeywordsNosema ceranaeInfectivitySporeNosemaEpizootiologyTransmission (telecommunications)Parasite hosting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nosema apis and N. ceranae are the two causative agents of Nosema disease in adult honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Nosema apis has been a recognized parasite for over a century and its epizootiology is well known. In contrast, N. ceranae is an emerging parasite of honey bees, which is now globally prevalent and the dominant Nosema spp. in many parts of the world. Despite this, many gaps in our knowledge exist regarding this species. For example, we do not fully understand all of the routes of transmission of N. ceranae among bees, or how long this parasite is capable of surviving in honey bee colonies. Here we investigated the viability and infectivity of N. ceranae spores in water and 2 M sucrose over time after storage at 33, 20, −12 and −20°C. Spores in both 2 M sucrose and water maintained high viability, except in water at −20°C over the course of the 6-week experiment. Infectivity was variable for spores after storage at all four temperatures, but all were infective at the last time point. The results provide evidence for cold tolerance and suggest that both water and 2 M sucrose (fall bee feed) could act as routes of transmission for N. ceranae. This work also contains information that may help influence management recommendations for the parasite.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParasitologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207