MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382763144 · doi:10.1051/apido:2007021/pdf

Incidence and molecular characterization of viruses found in dying New Zealand honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies infested with Varroa destructor

2007· article· en· W4382763144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacqui H. Todd, Joachim R. de Miranda, B. V. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentPennsylvania Department of Agriculture
KeywordsVarroa destructorVarroaBiologyHoney beeIncidence (geometry)DestructorZoologyHoney BeesVeterinary medicineEcologyMedicineMite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The virus status of New Zealand honey bee colonies infested with Varroa destructor was studied from 2001 to 2003. The viruses CBPV, BQCV, SBV, CWV, and KBV were all found during the study, with CWV and KBV the most common, as inferred from serological and protein profile analyses. DWV, SPV and ABPV were not detected in these colonies. CWV was present in the colonies throughout the season, while the appearance of KBV generally coincided with autumn colony collapse when V. destructor populations were large. Inconsistencies between serological analyses and viral capsid protein profiles of the extracts containing CWV and KBV were probably a result of strain differences between the viruses found in New Zealand and those used to generate the diagnostic antisera. The genome of the New Zealand KBV strain was partially sequenced. Phylogenetic and serological analyses showed this strain to be unique and most closely related to Canadian KBV isolates.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207