MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133282956

Environmental Risk Assessment of the GloFish® Starfire Red®, Electric Green®, Sunburst Orange®, and Galactic Purple® Barbs (Puntigrus tetrazona) : Transgenic Ornamental Fishes

2022· other· en· W7133282956 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charise Dietrich, Rosalind A. Leggatt, Colin McGowan

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardRisk assessmentEnvironmental hazardHazard analysisHabitatProbabilistic risk assessmentEnvironmental impact assessmentWildlife
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), a notification under the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms) (NSNR(O)) was submitted by Spectrum Brands to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) for the import of four genetically engineered lines of Tiger Barb (Puntigrus tetrazona) called the GloFish® Electric Green® Barb (GB2011), Starfire Red® Barb (RB2015), Sunburst Orange® Barb (OB2019), and Galactic Purple® Barb (PB2019), for commercial sale in Canada. The environmental risk assessment analyzed potential hazards, likelihood of exposure, and associated uncertainties to reach a conclusion on risk. The environmental exposure assessment concluded that the occurrence of GB2011, RB2015, OB2019 and PB2019 in the Canadian environment, outside of aquaria, is expected to be rare, isolated, and ephemeral due to their inability to survive typical low winter temperatures in Canada’s freshwater environments. Consequently, the likelihood of exposure to the Canadian environment is ranked low. Uncertainty associated with the exposure assessment is low, given the available data for temperature tolerance of the notified lines and relevant comparators, and lack of establishment of non-transgenic P. tetrazona in North America despite a long history of use. The environmental hazard assessment concluded that potential hazards linked with environmental toxicity, trophic interactions, hybridization, disease, biodiversity, biogeochemical cycling, and habitat are negligible. There is low hazard (i.e., no anticipated harmful effects) related with horizontal gene transfer. Uncertainty associated with the environmental hazard rankings range from low to moderate due to data limitations for the notified and surrogate organisms, and some reliance on expert opinion and anecdotal evidence. The use of CRISPR during the creation of OB2019 and PB2019 may have resulted in unintended mutations in the GloFish® Barb populations, adding to uncertainty in the hazard assessment, but without altering the overall conclusions on risk. There is low risk of adverse environmental effects at the exposure levels predicted for the Canadian environment from the use of GB2011, RB2015, OB2019, and PB2019 as ornamental aquarium fish, or other potential uses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada→French-language works237,207→