MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220966368 · doi:10.1002/smll.202200231

The Road to Achieving the European Commission's Chemicals Strategy for Nanomaterial Sustainability—A PATROLS Perspective on New Approach Methodologies

2022· article· en· W4220966368 on OpenAlexaff
Shareen H. Doak, Martin J. D. Clift, Anna Luisa Costa, Christiaan Delmaar, Ilse Gosens, Sabina Halappanavar, Sean Kelly, Willie J. G. M. Pejinenburg, Barbara Rothen‐Rutishauser, Roel P. F. Schins, Vicki Stone, Lang Tran, Martina G. Vijver, Ulla Vogel, Wendel Wohlleben, Flemming R. Cassee

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsSustainabilityEuropean commissionRisk analysis (engineering)Hazardous wasteHazardSustainable developmentEuropean unionBusinessEnvironmental planningComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Green Deal outlines ambitions to build a more sustainable, climate neutral, and circular economy by 2050. To achieve this, the European Commission has published the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability: Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, which provides targets for innovation to better protect human and environmental health, including challenges posed by hazardous chemicals and animal testing. The European project PATROLS (Physiologically Anchored Tools for Realistic nanOmateriaL hazard aSsessment) has addressed multiple aspects of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability by establishing a battery of new approach methodologies, including physiologically anchored human and environmental hazard assessment tools to evaluate the safety of engineered nanomaterials. PATROLS has delivered and improved innovative tools to support regulatory decision-making processes. These tools also support the need for reducing regulated vertebrate animal testing; when used at an early stage of the innovation pipeline, the PATROLS tools facilitate the safe and sustainable development of new nano-enabled products before they reach the market.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0190.023
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0270.014
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicChemistry and Chemical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207