MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412409874 · doi:10.1111/csp2.70099

Assessing pathogen risk for wild bumblebees ( <i>Bombus</i> spp., Apidae) in Canada

2025· article· en· W4412409874 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amanda Liczner, Sheila R. Colla, Gordon Fitch

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of GuelphUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsApidaeBumblebeeBiologyPollinatorZoologyFungal pathogenPathogenEcologyHymenopteraPollinationMicrobiologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pathogen spillover has been cited as a threat to wild pollinator species, including bumblebees ( Bombus spp). Conservation planning to conserve declining pollinators requires prioritization of at‐risk populations where threats might be particularly high. Here we map overlap between areas of high conservation priority for protecting bumble bees and regions of pathogen spillover risk from managed bees for Canada, incorporating uncertainty in pathogen spillover potential into our analysis. Across Canada, 9%–17% of all conservation priority areas have some level of pathogen risk and 29%–37% of the area with pathogen risk contains conservation priority areas, but this risk is unevenly distributed. Alberta, British Columbia, and southern Ontario are the regions with the greatest risk for pathogen spillover in conservation priority areas. These results can inform government agencies and conservation practitioners engaged in pollinator conservation to develop more effective evidence‐based programs and policy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation Science and PracticeSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207