A consumer view on food biotechnology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australasian Biotechnology, Volume 7 Number 3, May/June 1997, pp.143-147 Issues - A consumer view on food biotechnology Carole Renouf Code Number: AU97020 Size of Files: Text: 20.8K Graphics: No associated graphics files A new climate? At the meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling held in Canada in April, a startling development took place. The proposal to only require labelling of genetically modified foods if they were not `substantially equivalent' was rejected. Several national delegations argued that `substantial equivalence' as currently defined should not be the ultimate criterion for assessing genetically modified foods, and does not comprehend many of the broader consumer concerns. As a result the proposal has to be reworked for Codex next year to bring the consumer point of view into the scientific fold. Copyright 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".