MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003266653 · doi:10.4161/gmcr.1.3.12761

Rapeseed species and environmental concerns related to loss of seeds of genetically modified oilseed rape in Japan

2010· review· en· W2003266653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Toru Nishizawa, Masanori Tamaoki, Mitsuko Aono, Akihiro Kubo, Hikaru Saji, Nobuyoshi Nakajima

Bibliographic record

VenueGM Crops · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRapeseedBrassicaBrassica rapaBiosafetyCropAgronomyBiologyGenetically modified organismCultivarBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feral rapeseed in Japan consists of Brassica rapa, B. juncea and B. napus, mostly produced by escape from crops. Brassica rapa and B. juncea were introduced from abroad long ago as leaf and root vegetables and as an oil crop and breeders have developed various cultivars. Brassica napus was introduced in the late 1800s, mainly as an oil crop. Rapeseed production in Japan is low, and most demand is met by imports from Canada (94.4% of the 2009 trade volume). Recently, spontaneous B. napus, including genetically modified (GM) herbicide-resistant individuals, has been detected along Japanese roads, probably originating from seeds lost during transportation of imports. As GM oilseed production increases abroad, the probability of escape of GM oilseed rape in Japan will increase, raising environmental biosafety concerns related to the impact of feral rapeseed on heirloom brassicaceous crops. In this paper, we review the history of rapeseed introduction in Japan and future concerns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGM CropsSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207