MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114693936 · doi:10.1080/01926230252824815

Safety Assessment and Public Concerns for Genetically Modified Food Products: The Japanese Experience

2002· review· en· W2114693936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Akihiro Hino

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicologic Pathology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotechnologyGenetically modified cropsCanolaCropGenetically modified organismGenetically engineeredGene technologyCrop protectionBiologyBusinessAgronomyTransgene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recombinant DNA (rDNA) technique is expected to bring about great progress in the improvement of breeding technology and the development of new plant varieties showing high quality and high yield, such as those with excellent pest and disease resistance, those with environmental stress tolerance, and so forth. In the United States and Canada, many genetically modified (GM) crop plants were commercialized as early as 1994. In Japan, 35 transgenic crop plants, such as herbicide tolerant soybean, cotton, and canola, and insect-resistant corn, cotton, and potatos, were authorized and considered marketable until April 2001. The general public, however, is not familiar with rDNA technology, and some people seem to feel uncomfortable with biotechnology, frequently because of the difficulty of the technology and lacking of sufficient information. New labeling systems were initiated in April 2001 in Japan to provide information regarding the use of GM crops as raw material.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.225
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicologic PathologySame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207