A quantitative <i>Apis mellifera</i> hazard and risk assessment model (AMHRA) illustrated with the insecticide sulfoxaflor: sulfoxaflor environmental science review part VI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, conceptual models of the exposure pathways outside the hive and the in-hive distribution of pesticide residues brought to the honeybee hive are presented. The conceptual model is based on the natural life history, behavior and diet of individual honeybees (Apis mellifera). Receptor groups of bees with similar diets and potential exposure are defined. From the conceptual model, a quantitative A. mellifera hazard and risk assessment model (AMHRA) is developed and illustrated using sulfoxaflor (SFX) as a case study. The model estimates the exposure of the receptor groups of honeybees within a colony via various routes of exposure. The user selects a deterministic mode to obtain hazard quotients (HQ) or a probabilistic mode to obtain risk quotients (RQ). The model was run in the deterministic mode using the pesticide concentrations in nectar and pollen from a field experiment in which SFX was applied to cotton crops at the highest permitted application rate of 101 g a.i. ha−1. Acute and chronic exposure HQ values were calculated for the adult and larval receptor groups. The results showed that the SFX applied at the highest single application rate following the label directions was not hazardous to honeybees. The probabilistic mode was described but not run.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".