MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190535182 · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12816

A review of Canadian and international food safety systems: Issues and recommendations for the future

2021· review· en· W3190535182 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvain Charlebois, Mark Juhasz, Janet Music, Janèle Vézeau

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood safetyContext (archaeology)BusinessBest practiceFood safety risk analysisPolitical scienceGeographyMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2019, the Safe Food for Canadians Act/Safe Food for Canadians regulations (heretofore identified as SFCR) came into force across Canada and brought a more streamlined process to food safety practice in Canada. Food trade and production processes have evolved rapidly in recent decades, as Canada imports and exports food products; therefore it is critically important to remain aware of the latest advances responding to a range of challenges and opportunities in the food safety value chain. Looking through the optics of the recent SFCR framework, this paper places the spotlight on leading domestic and international research and practices to help strengthen food safety policies of the future. By shedding some light on new research, we also draw attention to international developments that are noteworthy, and place those in context as to how new Canadian food safety policy and regulation can be further advanced. The paper will benchmark Canada through a review study of food safety best practices by juxtaposing (i) stated aspirations with, (ii) actual performance in leading Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) jurisdictions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food SafetySame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207