Comparative Hazard Assessment of the Substances Used for Production and Control of Coca and Poppy in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glyphosate and an adjuvant, Cosmo-Flux® are employed for the control of coca and poppy plants used to manufacture the illicit drugs cocaine and heroin in Colombia, Latin America. Other substances, from pesticides to control pests in the coca and poppy fields to substances used in the extraction and refining processes are used by growers and refiners of the drugs. The practice of illicit crop production may have potential adverse effects on human and environmental health due to cut and burn practices and the large quantities of chemicals required to cultivate the crops under the conditions of growth in Colombia. Of the 67 substances used in significant quantities, 20 were selected as high hazard substances and 16 of these were pesticides. A comparative approach was used to evaluate the relative hazard from glyphosate as used in the spray eradication program and the 16 pesticides used in the production of coca and poppy. Hazard quotients for the human indicated that several pesticides used in coca and poppy production present much greater hazard to humans than glyphosate. Hazard quotients calculated for the aquatic environments indicated that most of the pesticides used in coca and poppy production present significantly greater hazards to aquatic organisms than glyphosate (and Cosmo-Flux®). Several of the pesticides presented significant hazards to bees and other pollinators, however, the formulation of glyphosate plus Cosmo-Flux® was essentially non-toxic to honey bees. For the earthworm hazard assessment, only diazinon and carbendazim were more hazardous to earthworms than glyphosate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".