MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065138915 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0444

An analytical model assessing the potential threat to natural habitats from insect resistance transgenes: continuous transgene input

2006· article· en· W2065138915 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen K. Kelly, Michael G. Bowler, Felix Breden

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsBurnaby HospitalSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTransgeneResistance (ecology)InsectHabitatEcologyBiotechnologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential effects of 'escape' of genetically modified material (transgenes) into natural communities is a major concern in their use. These effects may be limited in the first instance by limiting the proportion of transgene-carrying plants in the natural community. We previously presented an analytical model of the ecological processes governing the relative abundance and persistence of insect resistance (IR) transgenes in a natural community. In that paper, we illustrated the case in which the transgene is input into the community in a single season using data from oilseed rape (OSR) and its known herbivore, Plutella macropennis. We found that the transgene is unlikely to have a great impact on the natural community. Here, we extend the model for repeated input of crop pollen carrying the transgene. We show the model output, again using OSR, for continuous input of the transgene over 10 years, the projected commercial lifetime of a transgene without associated undesirable agronomic effects. Our results do not change our original conclusion that the IR transgene need not have a large impact on the natural community and our suggestions for assessing and mitigating any threat still stand.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207