Similarities between the discovery and regulation of pharmaceuticals and pesticides: in support of a better understanding of the risks and benefits of each
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An argument is presented by which the role of pharmaceuticals and pesticides can both be viewed in terms of contributing to human health. Comparisons are made in terms of discovery and development, regulatory policies and environmental and human impacts. Both technologies target particular biological functions, and in many cases they target similar molecular sites of action. Pharmaceuticals and pesticides undergo a similar registration process; however, both can enter the environment where they can have adverse effects on non-target organisms and, if misused, will have detrimental effects on human health or the environment. It is suggested that the risks associated with the two technologies are similar. The rejection of pesticides by the general public is based primarily on personal value systems and the uncertainty of risk management. It is concluded that plant and animal health are vital to maintaining human health, and that pesticides used in food production are, as with pharmaceuticals, a vital tool used to maintain human health.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".