East meets west: regional impact on agrochemical discovery and innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficient production of the food needed to nourish an expanding global population continues to fuel the demand for new crop protection compounds. This task is made all the more difficult by the need to meet increasingly demanding grower, consumer and regulatory constraints. The discovery and development of new synthetic organic crop protection compounds has been largely the responsibility of the agrochemical industry in Europe, Japan and the USA, with government-funded academic research often playing a crucial role in the early stages of the invention and testing of novel activity. The way in which this process takes place has undergone a dramatic evolution over the past 75 years. Drastic consolidation and globalization among the research and development (R&D)-based companies in these regions have characterized these changes. This evolution in the agrochemical industry has, in turn, shaped the rate of introduction and geographic origin of new crop protection compounds. In spite of these changes, the rate of invention of new classes of crop protection compounds has remained relatively constant. During the past 30 years, the forefront of new compound introductions has moved towards Asia, and Japan in particular. Although there are now more agrochemical companies in Japan involved in the discovery and development of new crop protection compounds than in Europe and the USA combined, on a compound-per-company basis, US companies currently generate the highest output. However, it is expected that there will continue to be changes in the numbers and origins of new crop protection compounds, with contributions continuing from Europe, Japan and the USA, and increasingly from China. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
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.
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".