MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397022182 · doi:10.1093/jee/toae094

A colony health and economic comparison between mite resistant and commercial honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

2024· article· en· W4397022182 on OpenAlexaff
Arián Avalos, Elizabeth M. Walsh, Miriam Bixby, A. M. Card�, Wes Card

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVarroaVarroa destructorBiologyVarroa sensitive hygieneBeekeepingPopulationHoney beeWorker beeApidaePollinatorApiaryInfestationToxicologyPollinationBiotechnologyEcologyBotanyHymenopteraDemographyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are the premier agricultural pollinators with direct ecological value and are key to some agro-economies. Major factors have negatively impacted honey bee health in the past 2 decades with Varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) infestation rising as a principal predictor of colony mortality. A key strategy deployed in Varroa management is breeding for resistant honey bee populations that can maintain comparable levels of productivity as nonresistant populations. In this study, we examine one such population, Hilo honey bees, within the context of a common garden contrast with a commercial population in a stationary honey production operation. We compare colony survival, health, yield, and profit outcomes to show how this specific breeding population retains a profit value in honey production operations while maintaining higher survival and lower Varroa infestation levels than the commercial population. This information can be used by commercial beekeepers to make best management practice decisions and inspire further work examining what trade-offs, if any, are present in this Varroa-resistant population.

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)0.001
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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207