EAACI Position Paper: Prevention of work-related respiratory allergies among pre-apprentices or apprentices and young workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To cite this article: Moscato G, Pala G, Boillat MA, Folletti I, Gerth van Wijk R, Olgiati-Des Gouttes D, Perfetti L, Quirce S, Siracusa A, Walusiak-Skorupa J, Tarlo SM. EAACI Position Paper: Prevention of work-related respiratory allergies among pre-apprentices or apprentices and young workers. Allergy 2011; 66: 1164–1173. Apprenticeship is a period of increased risk of developing work-related respiratory allergic diseases. There is a need for documents to provide appropriate professional advice to young adults aiming to reduce unsuitable job choices and prevent impairment from their careers. The present document is the result of a consensus reached by a panel of experts from European and non-European countries addressed to allergologists, pneumologists, occupational physicians, primary care physicians, and other specialists interested in this field, which aims to reduce work-related respiratory allergies (rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma) among allergic or nonallergic apprentices and other young adults entering the workforce. The main objective of the document is to issue consensus suggestions for good clinical practice based on existing scientific evidence and the expertise of a panel of physicians.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
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".