General framework for assessing the risks for in-soil organisms exposed to Plant Protection Products (PPP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) has been tasked by EFSA to revise the SANCO guidance Document on Terrestrial Ecotoxicology which is currently used for conducting the risk assessment for terrestrial non-target organisms, except for birds and mammals and non-target arthropods. For each group of organisms, the PPR Panel first summarises the science behind the respective risk assessment in a scientific opinion and, in a second step, EFSA will develop practical guidance on how to perform the risk assessment. The main scope of the revision is to take into consideration: (i) the entry into force of the Regulation 1107/2009 replacing the Directive 91/414/EEC; (ii) the need for developing specific protection goals and (iii) the inclusion of new scientific elements in the environmental risk assessment of in-soil organisms. The Opinion only covers chemical plant protection products (PPPs), while microbial PPPs are not specifically addressed in the opinion. The working group of the PPR Panel reviewed the current environmental risk assessment, identified key drivers that sustain important soil ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes and developed proposals for specific protection goal (SPG) options for in-field and off-field areas, according to the procedure developed in the opinion of the PPR Panel of 2010 Based on the overarching ecosystem services concept, which was boosted in the so-called Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, those ecosystem services that could potentially be directly or indirectly (e.g. via trophic interactions) affected by the normal agricultural use of plant protection products were first identified, followed by the groups of in-soil organisms that are key drivers or service providing units (SPUs) for those ecosystem services. Specific protection goal (SPG) options have to be proposed for each combination of a key driver and ecosystem service. During the development of the opinion, several research needs covering different aspects in the context of pesticides risk assessment for in-soil organisms have been identified. Some of those needs, such as standardisation of toxicity tests with additional species than the standard ones, should be prioritised before the development of the guidance document. A public consultation on the draft opinion was launched in May, 2016 aiming at involving all the interested stakeholders.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".