MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157229268 · doi:10.1002/ps.1513

Comparison of herbicide regimes and the associated potential environmental effects of glyphosate‐resistant crops versus what they replace in Europe

2007· review· en· W2157229268 on OpenAlexaff
G.A. Kleter, Caroline Harris, G. R. Stephenson, John Unsworth

Bibliographic record

VenuePest Management Science · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinisterie van Landbouw, Natuur en VoedselkwaliteitInternational Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
KeywordsGlyphosateAgronomyCropFodderGenetically modified cropsPesticideBiologyEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryTransgene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While cultivation of transgenic crops takes place in seven of the EU member states, this constitutes a relatively limited part of the total acreage planted to these crops worldwide. The only glyphosate-resistant (GR) crop grown commercially until recently has been soybean in Romania. In addition, large-scale experimental European data exist for GR sugar and fodder beets, and, to a lesser extent, GR oilseed rape. These GR crops are likely to have an impact both on the use of herbicides and on the environmental impact of the latter. From the data on these GR crops, it appears that quantities of herbicides applied to GR beets are decreased while those on GR soybean are slightly increased compared with their conventional counterparts. Depending on the parameters used for prediction or measurement of environmental impacts of GR crops, generally similar or less negative impacts were observed compared with conventional crops. Favourable environmental effects of the glyphosate-containing herbicide regimes on GR crops appear feasible, provided appropriate measures for maintaining biodiversity and prevention of volunteers and gene flow are applied.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations64
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePest Management ScienceSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207