MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W602278372 · doi:10.1520/stp10250s

Harmonization of Plant Toxicity Tests

2000· book-chapter· en· W602278372 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
RC Petrie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmonizationToxicityChemistryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is participating in Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) workgroups to update OECD guidelines number 201 (aquatic algal toxicity), number 208 (terrestrial plant toxicity), and to develop a new yet unnumbered guideline for the aquatic macrophyte Lemna spp. The EPA participants have presented the 850 series EPA guidelines and existing American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guidelines to the OECD workgroups for their consideration. Under the existing North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the EPA is harmonizing plant toxicity tests and nontarget plant risk assessment methods with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), Canada. A pesticide regulatory workshop was recently held at the EPA to share information with Mexican government pesticide regulators. The OECD guidelines are focusing on pesticide and toxic substances, whereas NAFTA harmonization efforts to date are primarily for methods used to evaluate pesticides. While some of the plant tests are similar for toxic substances and pesticides, statutes and risk assessment methods are different.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.014

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207