Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential for stigmatisation of food is enormous. Well-publicised outbreaks of foodborne pathogens and the furore over agricultural biotechnology are but two current examples of the interactions between science, policy and public perception. Current risk management research indicates that it is essential for risk managers to show that they are reducing, mitigating or minimising a particular risk. Those responsible must be able to effectively communicate their efforts and must be able to prove they are actually reducing levels of risk.The components for managing the stigma associated with any food safety issue involve the following factors:• effective and rapid surveillance systems;• effective communication about the nature of risk;• a credible, open and responsive regulatory system;• demonstrable efforts to reduce levels of uncertainty and risk; and,• evidence that actions match words.Appropriate risk management strategies, such as on-farm food safety programs, are essential to demonstrate to consumers and others in the farm-to-fork supply chain that producers and regulators are cognisant of their concerns about food safety. Key words: Agricultural biotechnology, microbial food safety, genetically engineered food, risk perception, risk communication, risk 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 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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".