MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104645268 · doi:10.11575/prism/10103

A Public Consultation on Plant Molecular Farming

2005· article· en· W2104645268 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicTransgenic Plants and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsCommercializationAgricultureBusinessStakeholderTransparency (behavior)BiosafetyAgricultural biotechnologyRegulatory scienceBiotechnologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsMarketingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant molecular farming (PMF) is another phase in the ongoing research and development of transgenic plants, offering possibilities of producing therapeutic and industrial proteins. However, this technology poses important social and policy challenges. A public consultation was held in four regions in Canada using a modified focus group approach. Respondents received a background document on the technology prior to discussions. Five specific applications were discussed to investigate views on food versus nonfood crops, medical versus industrial applications, and containment approaches. Public assessments were on a case-by-case basis but were also clearly based on balancing benefits and risks as well as considerations of environmental impacts and regulatory oversight.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.179 · 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