Regression Analysis on Colony Collapse Disorder in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: In the last decade, the population of honey bees across the globe has declined sharply leaving scientists and bee keepers to wonder why? Amongst all nations, the United States has seen some of the greatest declines in the last 10 plus years. Without a definite explanation, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) was coined to explain the sudden and sharp decline of the honey bee colonies that beekeepers were experiencing. Colony collapses have been rising higher compared to expected averages over the years, and during the winter season losses are even more severe than what is normally acceptable. There are some possible explanations pointing towards meteorological variables, diseases, and even pesticide usage. Despite the cause of CCD being unknown, thousands of beekeepers have reported their losses, and even numbers of infected colonies and colonies under certain stressors in the most recent years. Using the data that was reported to The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as weather data collected by The National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA) and the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), regression analysis was used to investigate honey bee colonies to find relationships between stressors in honey bee colonies and meteorological variables, and colony collapses during the winter months. The regression analysis focused on the winter season, or quarter 4 of the year, which includes the months of October, November, and December. In the model, the response variables was the percentage of colonies lost in quarter 4. Through the model, it was concluded that certain weather thresholds and the percentage increase of colonies under certain stressors were related to colony loss.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".