Review of invertebrate biological control agent regulation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA: recommendations for a harmonized European system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Europe lags far behind Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA in terms of implementing regulatory procedures for the import and release of invertebrate biological control agents (IBCAs). A number of standards, documents and guidelines have been produced over recent years in an attempt to harmonize regulation of IBCA introduction into Europe. Despite these efforts, the number of member countries implementing any form of IBCA regulation remains low, with many industries, biological practitioners and regulators fearing that a regulatory system would render the process of approval for IBCA introduction into a country costly and time consuming. Europe’s priority is therefore to formulate a regulatory system that will be readily approved of and adopted by all member countries. In this paper we review the current regulatory processes operating in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. There is potential for Europe to benefit from the years of experience that these countries have in IBCA regulation. We therefore propose recommendations based on features of the regulatory processes in each of the four countries that work well and that could be adopted to generate a workable Europe‐wide regulatory system.
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 | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".