MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971621341 · doi:10.9787/kjbs.2019.51.3.175

Gene-Edited Crops: Present Status and their Future

2019· article· en· W2971621341 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Soo-Chul Park, Young-Hee Joung, Kyung‐Min Kim, Ju‐Kon Kim, Hee‐Jong Koh

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Breeding Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRural Development AdministrationCanadian Food Inspection AgencyU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCommercializationHarmonizationBiotechnologyGene technologyEmerging technologiesGenome editingBiologyGenetic engineeringStandardizationPlant breedingRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessComputer scienceGeneMarketingGenomeAgronomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, several attempts have been undertaken to develop breeding technologies by combining new biotechnologies.Gene-editing technology is currently one of the most interesting areas.The plant breeding methods using this technique have the advantage of greatly improved accuracy and efficiency of the plant genetic correction compared with conventional breeding methods, which has raised expectations for the useful application of this technology as a cutting-edge breeding technology.Although not all countries around the world currently have established appropriate regulation policies on crops developed with gene-editing technology, the number of cases in which GMO regulations are not applied on a case-by-case basis according to the scientific background is growing.However, Korea has not yet established policies on which criteria should be applied to crops generated from the application of gene-editing technology.As the number of cases of crop development and commercialization using gene-editing technology is expected to increase in the near future, it will be necessary to prepare reasonable policies to support developers and seed industries in Korea to ensure harmonization with international regulatory policy trends.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of Breeding ScienceSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207