EFSA GMO Panel guidance on the evaluation of potential adverse effects of GM plants on non-target organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.013 |
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".