Outcome of the public consultation on the draft scientific report on the cumulative dietary risk characterisation of pesticides that have acute effects on the nervous system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out a public consultation to receive input from interested parties on its draft scientific report on the cumulative dietary risk characterisation of pesticides that have acute effects on the nervous system. The document describes the process and the outcome of a risk assessment and an uncertainty analysis regarding the cumulative effects of pesticide residues on acetylcholinesterase and the motor division of the nervous system. The web‐based public consultation took place from 17 September to 15 November 2019. EFSA received comments from 17 parties including academia, national agencies, non‐governmental organisations and private bodies. This report lists the individual comments received and explains in detail how they were taken into account during the finalisation process of the scientific report. EFSA wishes to thank all the commenters for their valuable contributions.
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 | 0.115 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
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".