MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588760108

EFSA GMO Panel guidance on the evaluation of potential adverse effects of GM plants on non-target organisms

2012· preprint· en· W1588760108 on OpenAlexaff
Yann Devos, Detlef K. Bartsch, Achim Gathmann, Rosemary S. Hails, J. Kiss, Antoine Messéan, Sylvie Mestdagh, J. N. Perry, Jeremy Sweet

Bibliographic record

VenueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetically modified organismBiotechnologyGenetically engineeredRisk assessmentFood safetyRisk analysis (engineering)Scientific evidenceBusinessBiologyEconomicsManagementGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In November 2010, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) of the
\nEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a Scientific Opinion (SO) that delivers guidance on
\nthe environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) plants. Beside the ERA SO,
\nthe EFSA GMO Panel developed a separate SO that provides specific guidance for the evaluation of
\npotential adverse effects of GM plants on non-target organisms (NTOs). This paper describes some
\nelements of the ERA SO and NTO SO pertaining to NTO risk assessment, with a focus on: (1)
\nproblem formulation; (2) protection goals and limits of concern; (3) intended and unintended effects;
\n(4) species selection for testing purposes; and (5) stacked transformation events. Some scientific
\ncomments from EU Member States and stakeholders received during the development of both
\ndocuments through public consultations are also presented.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.217
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.129 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council)Same topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207