Weight of evidence assessment from field studies on effects of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on hymenopteran pollinators: sulfoxaflor environmental science review part V
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field studies involve combinations of exposure, natural dynamics, and effects in natural and agricultural environments. To be more realistic, field studies focussed on pollinating insects must consider the details of biology, life history, behavior, and pollination ecology of the test species. While expensive and time-consuming, these tests provide the most realistic information, especially for social insects, but are valuable for solitary bee species as well. They are more realistic than laboratory studies because they determine the combined effects of natural stressors including weather, food availability, parasites, and pathogens with anthropogenic stressors, such as the pesticide treatment itself, within agroecosystem landscapes. Twenty-four field studies conducted with bees to support the registration of sulfoxaflor and published work are included, and a standardized rating system for the quality and relevance of the studies was used. The studies included Apis mellifera L. Bombus terrestris L. and Osmia bicornis L. The results show that, when SFX products are applied at the highest labeled application rate with bees actively foraging or fed in syrup at equivalent rates, the effects are minor and temporary. Sublethal effects included lethargy, disorientation, and reduced body mass at emergence. No new modes of action and no treatment-related effects on brood rearing were found.
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 | 0.017 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".