MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168542995 · doi:10.1111/jfs.12172

Determinants of Future Microbial Food Safety in <scp>C</scp>anada for risk communication

2015· article· en· W2168542995 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Charlebois, Amit Summan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Safety · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood safetyRanking (information retrieval)Risk analysis (engineering)Context (archaeology)BusinessFood safety risk analysisCommodityComputer scienceEnvironmental planningMarketingGeographyBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the factors that are affecting food safety in C anada today, and those that will become increasingly important in the future. The tools used to complete this analysis are primarily the review of scientific and “gray” literature, and the analysis of multiple sources of data. We develop a methodology for ranking the factors and rank the factors according to their predicted effect on foodborne disease in C anada. The analysis reveals the top three factors that will be detrimental to food safety as pathogen evolution, increase in temperatures and increase in extreme weather events. Future studies may benefit from an analysis of factors by commodity. Practical Applications Food regulatory bodies, such as the C anadian F ood I nspection A gency, have a finite number of resources to address emerging food safety risks. A framework for ranking factors effecting food safety discussed in this paper will help determine the optimal distribution of resources designated for preventative and mitigative food safety programs and can better assist food regulators in anticipating emerging systemic risks. Although the focus of this paper is on the C anadian context, many of the results may be applied to other Western countries.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food SafetySame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207