MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790605586 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v41is6a03

Regulatory oversight of human pathogens and toxins in Canada

2015· article· en· W2790605586 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
C Labrie, S Lecordier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersCanadian Food Inspection AgencyU.S. Department of Justice
KeywordsBiosafetyHuman healthLegislatureStatutory lawGovernment (linguistics)LegislationBusinessHuman pathogenBiotechnologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthBiologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1994 to 2009, federal oversight of human pathogens and toxins was limited to facilities importing human pathogens and toxins into Canada under the Human Pathogens Importation Regulations (HPIR).This narrow focus of authority restricted the Government of Canada's ability to regulate and monitor a full range of activities, including those involving human pathogens and toxins acquired from domestic sources.In 2009, the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act (the Act) received Royal Assent to establish a national safety and security regime and expand oversight through a national, standardized process to verify safe and secure use of human pathogens and toxins in Canada.The Act and the Human Pathogens and Toxins Regulations (the Regulations), in full force since December 1, 2015, provides legislative and statutory requirements for the comprehensive oversight of the control of human pathogens and toxins in Canada.Expanded regulation and monitoring program activities aim to reduce the risks posed by human pathogens and toxins and strengthen biosafety management systems that serve to protect the health of Canadians.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207