Demarches d'evaluation des risques relatifs aux contaminants alimentaires cancerogenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sante Canada a exprime le besoin de determiner une procedure normalisee a l'echelle ministerielle pour l'evaluation des risques que comportent les cancerogenes dans les aliments (p. ex., les pesticides, les contaminants alimentaires chimiques et les medicaments veterinaires). Recourir a une procedure normalisee a pour but de faciliter la determination des strategies de gestion des risques visant a maitriser l'exposition humaine aux cancerogenes de source alimentaire et de les eclairer davantage. En contexte reglementaire posterieur a la mise sur le marche, ce sont les cancerogenes agissant directement sur l'ADN qui sont les plus preoccupants, car theoriquement, il est considere comme acquis que toute exposition a ceux-ci comporte un risque d'entrainer un effet cancerogene proportionnel a la dose. De tels cancerogenes pour lesquels aucune dose-reponse non lineaire n'a ete etablie, necessitent des demarches de caracterisation des risques differentes. Afin de contribuer aux deliberations qui ont cours a l-echelle de Sante Canada au sujet de l-elaboration des strategies de gestion des risques afferents aux substances cancerogenes, un survol general des procedures internationales d'evaluation des risques relatives a la presence de contaminants cancerogenes dans les aliments a ete realise. Dans le present examen, les parties du paradigme de l'evaluation des risques necessitant l'elaboration de lignes directrices plus normalisees comprennent la\ndetermination du poids de la preuve etablissant si un compose doit etre considere comme un cancerogene sans seuil d'exposition, les criteres techniques pour le choix de la demarche d'evaluation de la relation dose-reponse adequate et une demarche coherente pour l'interpretation et l'etablissement de la priorite des risques.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".