A risk management framework for the regulation of nanomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanotechnology promises a plethora of benefits to society. Early research has established that some types of nanomaterials may be highly toxic to living systems, while others are seemingly inert. Nanotoxicology is a new field that has become the focus for risk assessment and management of nanomaterials. To address the potential risks either current chemical and particulate material regulations need to be modified to encompass the uniqueness of nanomaterial exposure or nanomaterials should be regulated as an entirely separate category of environmental agent. Policy makers in different jurisdictions are already formulating new risk management frameworks for nanotoxicology. A review of risk management frameworks reveals similarities and differences between the largest funders of nanotechnology (the USA, the European Union, and Japan). The use of a common, integrated risk management framework of the type proposed here will help reduce future trade barriers that may arise from differential nanotoxicity derived standards and variable nanotoxicology research results.
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 | 0.036 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| 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".