Re: Sponsorship by Big Oil, Like the Tobacco Industry, Should Be Banned by the Research Community
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: The provocative editorial by Kogevinas and Takaro1 suggests that the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE) has embarked on a slippery slope of advocacy and selective indignation. Kogevinas and Takaro1 were apparently displeased by Big Oil companies’ sponsorship of the ISEE/International Society of Exposure Science (ISES) joint conference held in August 2018 in Ottawa, Canada. In their editorial, they point to ISES as being responsible and propose that we in the field of Environmental and Occupational Health should no longer accept research funding from Big Oil companies. One expects that Drs. Kogevinas and Takaro1 are aware that their own organization is being sponsored by one of the most notorious e-commerce employers on our planet: Amazon. Within the November 2018 ISEE newsletter,2 the following suggestion is made: “As the holiday season approaches, remember that you can donate 0.5% of your Amazon purchase price to ISEE. To take advantage of this program, simply go to smile.amazon.com and register to support “International Society for Environmental Epidemiology” before you make your purchases. These donations will go into ISEE’s general account and will be used to improve the services offered by the society.” Amazon’s reputation for poor treatment of its own workers should be familiar to every ISEE member who reads newspapers.3,4 Objecting to sponsorship from Big Oil while accepting sponsorship from Amazon may point to inconsistent standards. Does the Kogevinas and Takaro1 editorial perhaps imply that we should only accept governmental funding, or are some governments more acceptable than others? For example, is it acceptable for ISEE to take issue with the UralAsbest Cohort study carried out by the International Agency for Research on Cancer but funded by the Russian Federation?5 In that case, shouldn’t ISEE also provide its members with a list of countries from which the receipt of research money is not acceptable? My opinion is that ISEE should not wade into the murky waters of politics and advocacy. Instead, I would advise ISEE and ISES members to secure funding from any source, as long as they are able to guarantee total independence and scientific integrity through firewalls and independent scientific advisory committees. There is no need for ISEE or its ethics committee to have the last say in what is acceptable or not. Furthermore, close collaboration with governments, industries, nongovernmental organizations, employers (associations), unions, and individual workers is a must, because within our field of public health what ultimately counts is to “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” by 2030.6 That is closer than we think. Hans KromhoutInstitute for Risk Assessment SciencesUtrecht University, UtrechtThe Netherlands[email protected]
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,080 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,026 | 0,034 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,033 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».