Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residues of veterinary drugs have potential implications for human food safety and international trade in animal-derived food commodities. A particular concern is the slow depletion of residues of some injectable formulations from the site of administration. Licensing authorities have adopted different approaches to the human food safety assessment of injection site residues. European agencies apply the maximum residue limit (MRL) for muscle to muscle at the injection site and specify a withdrawal period sufficient to ensure the ingestion of a 300 g portion of muscle, if comprised entirely of injection site tissue, does not exceed the acceptable daily intake. The agencies in Australia, Canada and the USA also exclude injection site residues from the MRL-setting process. These agencies evaluate the risk to consumers posed by potential acute manifestations resulting from the infrequent ingestion of injection site residues based on acute dietary exposure considerations. While all of these approaches protect the safety of consumers, the adoption of different approaches has potential implications for residue surveillance programs in the international trade in meat. In particular, when an exporting country establishes standards for residues at injection sites based on acute dietary exposure considerations and the importing country assesses these residues against the MRL for muscle, the unnecessary condemnation of meat and disruption to market access may result. The latter may represent a potential economical impost to the exporting country. An internationally harmonized approach to the risk analysis of residues of veterinary drugs at injection sites, which protects the safety of consumers and facilitates the international trade in meat, is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".