MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206283985 · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7014

Commodity risk assessment of specified species of Lonicera potted plants from Turkey

2022· article· en· W4206283985 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Bragard, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Francesco Di Serio, Paula Cristina dos Santos Baptista, Paolo Gonthier, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas‐Cortés, Stephen Parnell, Philippe Lucien Reignault, Emilio Stefani, Hans‐Hermann Thulke, Wopke van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappalà, Jane Debode, Charles Manceau, Ciro Gardi, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Roel Potting

Bibliographic record

VenueEFSA Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch on scale insects
Canadian institutionsAlpha Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPEST analysisQuarantineRisk assessmentEuropean commissionExpert opinionBusinessEuropean unionBiologyToxicologyEcologyHorticultureComputer scienceInternational tradeMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High-risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by potted plants (2–4 years old) of specified Lonicera species produced in nurseries and that are imported from Turkey, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the NPPO of Turkey. The relevance of any pest for this Opinion was based on evidence following defined criteria listed in Section 4.1. Three species, the EU-quarantine pests Lopholeucaspis japonica and Meloidogyne chitwoodi and the protected zone quarantine pest Bemisia tabaci, fulfilled these criteria and were selected for further evaluation. For these pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from Turkey were evaluated taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The estimated degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with B. tabaci on evergreen species of Lonicera spp. being the pest most frequently expected on the imported plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9,293 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 would be free of B. tabaci.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEFSA JournalSame topicResearch on scale insectsFrench-language works237,207