Genetically modified food trade: A case study of India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetically modified (GM) food crops have the potential to raise agricultural productivity in developing countries, but they are also associated with the risk of market access losses in sensitive importing countries. GM crops (rice, wheat, maize, soybeans, and cotton) are resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses, such as drought-resistant and insect pest resistance. Labelling is one of the key Issues by which will separate supply chain of GM and Non-GM that coexist in food trade. In Europe & some countries labelling is mandatory up to a threshold GM content level or in some countries it is voluntary like Canada and USA. There are multiplicity of organizations and ministries dealing in GM issues. FSSAI is food safety regulatory and monitoring body. Its main role is formulation of food safety standards based on modern science and to regulate the food sector. Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is another important organisation for recommending commercial GM product for production, sale, import or use by Rule 11 of Rules 89. Besides environment safety tests, the GEAC requires extensive food safety tests for new GM products like food stuffs, ingredients in food stuffs and additives including processing aids containing or consisting of GMOs. This paper studies the present situation of GM crops, its use, trade, traceability and trade regulation, GM food assessment regulation in India
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".