The upcoming European Soil Monitoring Law: An effective instrument for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soils are a precious resource consistently placed under several threats and urgently in need of protection within a regulatory framework at the European level. Soils are central to the provision of environmental services as well as human existence on earth. The need to protect soil has been identified by several recent European strategies and fortunately, a specific European regulation for soil protection is on the way-the European Soil Monitoring Law (formerly: Soil Health Law). However, efforts need to ensure that the upcoming Soil Monitoring Law closes gaps between existing regulations for chemicals and acknowledges current European strategies for environmental protection and sustainability. This brief communication started from a fruitful discussion among SETAC Global Soils Interest Group members on a recent public consultation on the newly proposed Soil Monitoring Law of the European Commission and highlights critical points focusing on the chemical pollution of soils. We emphasize urgent needs such as the essential definition of a "healthy state" of soils; the implementation of a suitable set of indicators and quality standards for the description of physical, chemical, and biological states of soils; the enforcement of the "polluter-pays" principle; and the establishment of a Europe-wide monitoring program. Results from monitoring need to be fed back into regulatory frameworks, including the regulation of chemicals. Guidance documents for the risk assessment of chemicals are outdated and need to be updated. Finally, actions need to be taken to foster healthy soils, stop biodiversity decline, and ensure the functioning of ecosystem services for future generations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:316-321. © 2023 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".