Introduction to Special Series: Science-Based Guidance and Framework for the Evaluation and Identification of PBTs and POPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing sense of urgency among scientists and environmental policy-makers concerning the need for improving the scientific foundation supporting international regulations for identifying and evaluating persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment. The current national and international regulations define PBTs and POPs in terms of fairly strict criteria that are based on the state of the science in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since then, an evolution in the state of the science has produced new insights into PBT substances and an array of new methods to identify PBT chemicals. The development of regulatory criteria has not kept up with the rapid development in environmental chemistry and toxicology, and as a result, scientists often find themselves in the situation where guidance on PBT and POPs criteria is limited and, in some respects, out of date. With this background, a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Pellston Workshop brought together experts from academia, government, and industry to reach consensus on the significance of advancements in our understanding of the behavior and potential impact of POPs and PBTs in the environment, the current understanding of the state of the science, as well as recommendations for policy-makers to improve and coordinate national and international regulations on this issue. The workshop builds on the outcome of a previous Pellston workshop, held in 1998, which focused on the evaluation of persistence and long-range transport of organic chemicals in the environment, and is linked to other recent Pellston workshops, among them the Tissue Residue Approach for Toxicity Assessment workshop held in 2007. The results of this workshop are conveyed in a series of 9 articles, published in this issue of Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, and describe the coordination of science, regulation, and management needed to more effectively achieve a common goal of managing chemicals on our planet.
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 | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.029 |
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".