Treatment of waxborne honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) viruses using time, temperature, and electron-beam irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viruses are one of many serious threats to honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) health. There are many transmission routes for honey bee viruses, and there is potential for wax comb to act as a reservoir for transmission of viruses. Some work has been done on treating viruses on wax, focusing on irradiation as a potential treatment. However, irradiation is not universally available or economically viable for beekeepers in many regions. With increased colony deaths over winter beekeepers potentially risk further loss from reusing contaminated equipment from dead colonies. Here we explored the use of storage time and temperature on the reduction of waxborne virus levels from winter loss colony wax over 30 days and at -20, 5, and 20 °C. Furthermore, because irradiation has previously worked against waxborne viruses, we performed a dosage experiment with electron-beam irradiation. Winter loss wax was again used, and exposed to 10, 25, 35, and 45 kGy irradiation, including a nonirradiated transport control. Storage time decreased abundance of black queen cell virus and deformed wing virus at times equal or greater than 30 days but temperatures had no significant effect on virus levels. All irradiation doses decreased virus abundance and prevalence, yet only 35 and 45 kGy did so at a greater rate than the effect of transport alone.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".