MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031380582 · doi:10.1007/s11248-014-9794-z

Introduction to ISBGMO12: biosafety research past, present and future

2014· article· en· W2031380582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Raybould, Hector Quemada, Jörg Romeis

Bibliographic record

VenueTransgenic Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosafetyFraming (construction)BiotechnologyAgricultureChinaPolitical scienceBasic researchLibrary scienceBiologyEnvironmental ethicsEngineeringLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Symposium on Biosafety of Geneti-cally Modified Organisms (ISBGMO) is a biennialinternational meeting organised by the InternationalSocietyforBiosafetyResearch(ISBR;www.isbr.info/).ISBR promotes research and application of science inthe fields of agricultural and environmental biotech-nologyandriskanalysis.Inparticular,ISBRencouragesresearch that supports the safe and effective use ofbiotechnology in agriculture, food production, andpublic health, and assists the development of the rele-vant policy and regulation.ThefirstISBGMOwasheldinKiawahIsland,NorthCarolina, USA in November 1990. Since then, manycountries have hosted the meeting: Germany (twice),USA (California), Japan, Canada, China, France,South Korea, New Zealand and Argentina. The 12thISBGMO was held in St Louis, Missouri, USA fromthe 16th to the 20th of September 2012, and wasattended by about 500 delegates from 47 countries.This special section of Transgenic Research fea-tures thirteen papers developed from lectures andworkshops at the meeting. Taken together, the papersindicate that, for first generation genetically modified(GM) crops at least, biosafety research is increasinglyaddressing questions about the sustainable deploy-ment of the crops in agricultural systems, and isfocussing less on the basic characteristics of GM cropsas a class. Making regulatory risk assessment efficientand effective, and realising the economic, environ-mental and social opportunities presented by com-mercialised GM crops, now seems more importantthan, say, further basic research on unintended effectsof transformation or gene flow from GM crops to wildspecies. This is a hugely significant development.While ISBR and ISBGMOs focus on science, therole of policy in framing research questions andensuring effective application of new knowledge isincreasinglyrecognised.Inhiskeynoteaddress, Raven(2013) placed GM crops in the context of fulfillingagricultural policy. If our policy is to increase foodproduction to meet increasing need, then GM cropsought not to be singled out for ‘‘burdensome’’ regula-tory treatment: ‘‘it is no longer acceptable to delay theuse of any strategy that is safe and will help us achievethe ability to feed the world’s people.’’A source of onerous regulatory treatment wasconcern that that GM crops might ‘‘escape’’. At thetime of the first ISBGMO in 1990, scientists werethinking about the ecological consequences of trans-genes not being contained by agricultural management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransgenic ResearchSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207