Beekeeping suitability prediction based on an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and apiary level data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study employs a predictive modelling approach using a fuzzy inference system to assess the beekeeping potential of a geographic area. Specifically, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system with subtractive clustering (ANFIS-SC) was utilized, incorporating six input variables that influence Apis mellifera health and productivity, and field data as the output variable reflecting the state of a colony. The results demonstrate the model’s effectiveness in predicting the suitability of areas for beekeeping. Sensitivity analysis highlighted the significant effects of relative humidity on the model’s output. The research underscores the importance of data quality, particularly in determining the local land cover quality index (LLCQI), on the outcomes. This study highlights the role of data science in enhancing precision in beekeeping and proposes its integration into management practices to support honey bee health. • A fuzzy neural networks model is develloped to assess the suitability of an area for beekeeping. • Apiary-level data, especially hive mass, serves as an indicator of suitability. • With a dataset that merges weather and land cover/land use variables, the model is evaluated.
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.
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 it