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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.008

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