MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New protocols to assess the environmental impact of pests in the EPPO decision‐support scheme for pest risk analysis*

2012· article· en· W2166799829 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEPPO Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersBundesamt für UmweltEnergy Policy and Planning OfficeSeventh Framework ProgrammeAkademie Věd České Republiky
KeywordsRisk assessmentPEST analysisConsistency (knowledge bases)Risk analysis (engineering)Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental risk assessmentEnvironmental planningAlienEnvironmental resource managementBusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEcologyEnvironmental healthBiologyMedicineComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing the potential environmental impact of alien plants and plant pests is notoriously difficult. New protocols have been developed in the framework of the EC project PRATIQUE to provide guidance on environmental impact assessment in the EPPO pest risk analysis (PRA) decision‐support scheme and enhance consistency between risk assessors and risk ratings for different pests. A set of questions with rating guidance and examples is provided, and individual scores are summarized into final scores, using a hierarchy of risk matrices, to assess current and potential environmental impacts. Two separate protocols are available: for alien plants and for other pests. These protocols could also be used to assess environmental impact in other PRA schemes as well as to assign alien species to regional black lists or to prioritize species for management decisions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · 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