MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319662198 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2023)710

Parasites, parasitoids, and hive products that are potentially deleterious to wild and commercially raised bumble bees (Bombus spp.) in North America

2023· article· en· W4319662198 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elaine Evans, James P. Strange, Ben M. Sadd, Amber D. Tripodi, Laura L. Figueroa, Laurie Schneider Adams, Sheila R. Colla, Michelle A. Duennes, David M. Lehmann, Heather Moylett, Leif L. Richardson, James W. Smith, Tamara Smith, Edward M. Spevak, David W. Inouye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyPollinatorContext (archaeology)Honey beeBroodEcologyPollenPollination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bumble bees are important pollinators for a great diversity of wild and cultivated plants, and in many parts of the world certain species have been found to be in decline, gone locally extinct, or even globally extinct. A large number of symbionts live on, in, or with these social bees. We give an overview of what is known about bumble bee ecto-symbionts and parasitoids. We provide information on assessment of risks posed by select bumble bee symbionts and methods for their detection, quantification, and control. In addition, we assess honey bee hive products such as pollen and wax that are used in commercial bumble bee production, and highlight key risks and knowledge gaps. Knowledge of these potential threats to native pollinators is important and they need to be managed in the context of national and international commercial trade in bumble bees to prevent pest introduction and pathogen spillover that can threaten native bees.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207