How to test nontarget effects of veterinary pharmaceutical residues in livestock dung in the field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To register veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) as parasiticides on pastured animals, legislation in the European Union requires an environmental risk assessment to test the potential nontarget effects of fecal residues on dung-dwelling organisms. Products with adverse effects in single-species laboratory tests require further, higher-tier testing to assess the extent of these effects on entire communities of dung-dwelling organisms under more realistic field or semifield conditions. Currently, there are no documents specifically written to assist researchers in conducting higher-tier tests or to assist regulators in interpreting the results of such tests in an appropriate context. Here we provide such a document, written by members of the SETAC Advisory Group DOTTS (Dung Organism Toxicity Testing Standardization) with research experience on dung fauna in central and southern Europe, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. This document briefly reviews the organisms that make up the dung community and their role in dung degradation, identifies key considerations in the design and interpretation of experimental studies, and makes recommendations on how to proceed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".