MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000657027 · doi:10.1080/01652176.2011.567755

Risk management in primary apicultural production. Part 2: a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point approach to assuring the safety of unprocessed honey

2011· review· en· W2000657027 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Giovanni Formato, Romano Zilli, Roberto Condoleo, S. Marozzi, Ivor Davis, Frans J.M. Smulders

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Quarterly · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Food Safety AuthorityCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsHazard analysis and critical control pointsCritical control pointFood safetyBusinessProduction (economics)Hazard analysisRisk analysis (engineering)AuditFood processingHazardControl (management)Operations managementComputer scienceEngineeringMedicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In managing risks associated with the human consumption of honey, all sectors of the production chain must be considered, including the primary production phase. Although the introduction of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system has not been made compulsory for purposes of quality and safety control in farming operations, European legislation makes many references to the key role of primary production in food safety management and the HACCP system has been indicated as the preferred tool to ensure that consumers are provided with safe foods. This article describes a systematic HACCP-based approach to identifying, preventing and controlling food safety hazards occurring in primary apicultural production. This approach serves as a useful tool for beekeepers, food business operators, veterinary advisors, and for Food and Veterinary Official Control Bodies in their planning and conducting of audits and for establishing priorities for the evaluation of training programmes in the apicultural sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary QuarterlySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207