MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR METHYL BROMIDE

2016· article· en· W2802732077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wolney da Cunha Soares Júnior

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista da AGU · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBromideChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many international conventions have been celebrated recently in an attempt to avoid or reduce the problems arising from advances in science and technology. In this context, in order to protect the environment, emerged the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), which provide control mechanisms for the production and consumption, for example, of methyl bromide, one of the most aggressive substances for the ozone layer in the world. However, article 2H, paragraph 6, of the Montreal Protocol brings exemptions for the abovementioned gas, which can be freely used for the exclusively purpose of quarantine and pre-shipment of goods for import and export in the international market. Nevertheless, through the Joint Instruction (Instrução Normativa Conjunta – INC) SDA/ANVISA/IBAMA nº 01/2002, Brazil edited rules more severe than the prohibitions prescribed by the Montreal Protocol and banned any use of methyl bromide after 31/12/2015, including the phytosanitary treatment. Considering the potential costs of this restriction for the public health and the Brazilian economy, recently it has been edited the Joint Instruction (Instrução Normativa Conjunta – INC) SDA/ANVISA/IBAMA nº 02/2015 simply to abrogate the previous norm for the sake of the referred exemptions. Thus, there is no violation of any international obligation assumed by Brazil.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0150.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista da AGUSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207