MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581983840 · doi:10.1111/epp.12355

Harmonizing the regulation of invertebrate biological control agents in the EPPO region: using the NAPPO region as a model

2017· article· en· W2581983840 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 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsPhytosanitary certificationProcess (computing)BusinessControl (management)Member statesEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningInternational tradeComputer scienceGeographyEconomic growthEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEuropean union

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harmonized regulation of invertebrate biological control agents (IBCAs) is a major challenge for the 51 countries of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). Although some of these member countries in the EPPO region have well‐defined regulations and follow a common approach, others do not. The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) has achieved a common approach in North America through the development of Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures specific to IBCAs that outline the information required for submission of a request to release an agent. NAPPO has also developed a process to ensure that submissions are reviewed by experts and regulatory officials in all three member countries. It is proposed that EPPO takes advantage of the experience of NAPPO in developing a harmonized approach for regulating IBCAs.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.054 · 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