1 The GMO experience in North & South America – where to from here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003 North and South America (NSAm) accounted for more than 64 million ha, 94%, of total world area planted to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Delivery has occurred almost entirely through the private sector and adoption has been rapid in areas where the crops addressed serious production constraints and where farmers had access to the new technologies. Four countries (USA, Argentina, Brazil and Canada), four crops (soybean, cotton, canola and maize) and two traits (insect resistance and herbicide tolerance) account for the vast majority of the global transgenic area. Colombia, Mexico, Honduras, Uruguay and Paraguay have also planted GMOs. The economic benefits of the diffusion of GMOs have been widely shared among farmers, industry, and consumers despite the fact that the products are patented. The GMOs have had a favorable impact on the environment by facilitating reduced pesticide use and the adoption of conservation tillage. This paper surveys the level and distribution of the economic impacts of GMOs in NSAm to date. Media summary Ninety-four percent of world transgenic crop area is in the Americas. The economic benefits of GMOs have been widely shared among farmers, industry, and consumers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".