Risk assessment considerations with regard to the potential impacts of pesticides on endangered species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Simple, deterministic screening-level assessments that are highly conservative by design facilitate a rapid initial screening to determine whether a pesticide active ingredient has the potential to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If a worst-case estimate of pesticide exposure is below a very conservative effects metric (e.g., the no observed effects concentration of the most sensitive tested surrogate species) then the potential risks are considered de minimis and unlikely to jeopardize the existence of a threatened or endangered species. Thus by design, such compounded layers of conservatism are intended to minimize potential Type II errors (failure to reject a false null hypothesis of de minimus risk), but correspondingly increase Type I errors (falsely reject a null hypothesis of de minimus risk). Because of the conservatism inherent in screening-level risk assessments, higher-tier scientific information and analyses that provide additional environmental realism can be applied in cases where a potential risk has been identified. This information includes community-level effects data, environmental fate and exposure data, monitoring data, geospatial location and proximity data, species biology data, and probabilistic exposure and population models. Given that the definition of “risk” includes likelihood and magnitude of effect, higher-tier risk assessments should use probabilistic techniques that more accurately and realistically characterize risk. Moreover, where possible and appropriate, risk assessments should focus on effects at the population and community levels of organization rather than the more traditional focus on the organism level. This document provides a review of some types of higher-tier data and assessment refinements available to more accurately and realistically evaluate potential risks of pesticide use to threatened and endangered species. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2015;11:102–117. © 2014 SETAC Key Points Endangered species pesticide risk assessments typically employ screening-level evaluations to derive preliminary risk conclusions. Many methodological refinements s are available to more accurately and realistically quantify risks should progression to higher-tiers of risk assessment be necessary. Available higher-tier refinements take advantage of exposure, biological and toxicological data, use of spatially-explicit tools, development of more realistic exposure, risk and population models, and incorporation of probabilistic methods. Collectively, higher-tier refinements are designed to progress risk assessment from highly conservative and unrealistic towards more ecologically representative, realistic and relevant estimates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".