Utilising Iot Technologies To Improve Beekeeping Through Remote Hive Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) technology on beekeeping, with a particular emphasis on remote hive monitoring. The use of IoT has changed beekeeping, which is vital for pollination and honey production. Beekeepers now have access to real-time data on hive conditions. The study highlights the value of remote monitoring in proactive hive management and early detection as a means of addressing issues that conventional beekeeping techniques encounter. The elements of vibration, audio, temperature, humidity, hive weight, and other sensors that are part of remote monitoring systems are explained. Together, these sensors add to a thorough knowledge of the behaviour and health of hives. Beekeepers may take rapid, well-informed decisions thanks to real-time data transmission to centralized platforms, which encourages proactive interventions and improves overall hive management. The benefits of remote monitoring are emphasized, including improved production, resource efficiency, and early problem discovery. Early detection of diseases and pests reduces the impact on bee colonies, and resource efficiency results from a decreased need for frequent physical inspections. Optimized hive management based on real-time data analytics leads to increased production. There are recognized difficulties, including data security, implementation costs, and the requirement for education among beekeepers. The symbiotic relationship between conventional beekeeping knowledge and cutting-edge Internet of Things advancements, pointing to a peaceful and sustainable future for apiculture. This study highlights the critical role that remote hive monitoring plays in improving beekeeping techniques, protecting the health of bees, and promoting ecological balance through increased sustainability and productivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".