A consumer view on food biotechnology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australasian Biotechnology, Volume 7 Number 3, May/June 1997,\npp.143-147 Issues - A consumer view on food biotechnology Carole Renouf\nCode Number: AU97020 Size of Files: Text: 20.8K Graphics: No associated\ngraphics files A new climate? At the meeting of the Codex Committee on\nFood Labelling held in Canada in April, a startling development took\nplace. The proposal to only require labelling of genetically modified\nfoods if they were not `substantially equivalent' was rejected. Several\nnational delegations argued that `substantial equivalence' as currently\ndefined should not be the ultimate criterion for assessing genetically\nmodified foods, and does not comprehend many of the broader consumer\nconcerns. As a result the proposal has to be reworked for Codex next\nyear to bring the consumer point of view into the scientific fold.\nCopyright 1997 Australian Biotechnology Association Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".