Quantitative weight of evidence assessment of higher tier studies on the toxicity and risks of neonicotinoids in honeybees. 3. Clothianidin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quantitative weight of evidence (QWoE) methodology was used to assess higher tier studies on the effects of clothianidin (CTD) on honeybees. Assessment endpoints were population size and viability of commercially managed bees and quantity of hive products. A colony-level no-observed-adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) of 25 µg CTD/kg syrup, equivalent to an oral no-observed-adverse effect-dose (NOAED) of 7.3 ng/bee/d for all responses measured. Based on a NOAEC of 19.7 µg/kg pollen, the NOAED for honeybee larvae was 2.4 ng/bee larva/d. For exposures via dust, a no-observed-adverse effect rate of 4 g CTD/ha was used to assess relevance of exposures via deposition of dust. The overall weight of evidence suggested that there is minimal risk to honeybees from exposure to CTD from its use as a seed treatment. For exposures via dust, dust/seed and dust/foliar applications, there were no exposures greater than the NOAED for CTD in nectar and pollen, indicating a de minimis risk to honeybees when the route of exposure was via uptake in plants. Analysis of effect studies in the field indicated a consistent lack of relevant effects, regardless of the way CTD was applied. For exposures via dust, there were no adverse effects because of these applications and there were no exposures greater than the NOAED for CTD in nectar and pollen. The overall weight of evidence based on many studies indicated no adverse effects on colony viability or survival of the colony. Thus, the overall conclusion is that clothianidin, as currently used in good agricultural practices, does not present a significant risk to honeybees at the level of the 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".