Designing national pesticide legislation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International and national legal frameworks governing the trade and use of pesticides have undergone significant changes over the last twenty years. The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, the Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention, the Basel Convention and the Montreal Protocol are only some of the binding and non-binding international instruments applicable to part or all of the life cycle of a pesticide. Specific guidelines for implementation are often available from the secretariat of the applicable international instrument, but comprehensive guidance is generally lacking. Governments need a clear picture of their international obligations as well as guidance on the accepted international consensus on the proper management of pesticides. Upgraded national legislation is needed to align national frameworks with international norms. This text aims to provide governments wishing to design, reform or update their national legislation with up-to-date advice on all aspects of pesticide management. Although the recommendations for national legislative change are designed to be useful to all countries, the text highlights the particular problems faced by developing countries and countries in transition, offering practical solutions to common problems. Also published in Spanish.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it