MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393044205 · doi:10.1111/epp.12988

Horizon scanning: Tools to identify emerging threats to plant health in a changing world

2024· article· en· W4393044205 on OpenAlexaff
Andréas Antoniou, M. Abergel, Antigoni Akrivou, Tim Beale, Roger Day, Hannah Fielder, M. Larenaudie, Alan MacLeod, Rosace Maria Chiara, Evgenia Sarakatsani, Joseph R. Stinziano, Anna Szyniszewska, M. Suffert, Sara Tramontini

Bibliographic record

VenueEPPO Bulletin · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersEnergy Policy and Planning Office
KeywordsFutures studiesScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)Warning systemClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementProcess (computing)Emerging technologiesData scienceEnvironmental planningBusinessPolitical scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceGeographyEcologyBiologyEnvironmental scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the context of risk analysis, horizon scanning activity is a necessary component of any foresight process. This applies also to the specific context of biological invasions, supported and accelerated by climate change and global trade. Today, various institutions and research centres are equipped with a set of tools and methods for early warning on emerging threats. In the case of plant pests, web signals, trade data, community science data and sentinel plants are important sources of information, then analysed and elaborated through multicriteria approaches. The scope of this paper is to provide an overview of current practices, highlighting strengths and shortcomings, and to inform future research and policy initiatives about opportunities to address global change in this field.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPPO BulletinSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207