MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984992071 · doi:10.1179/oeh.2007.13.4.386

Exploratory Sampling of Asbestos in Residences Near Thetford Mines: The Public Health Threat in Quebec

2007· article· en· W1984992071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Micheline Marier, Eilliam Charney, Richard M. Rousseau, Roch Lanthier, John Van Raalte

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChrysotileAsbestosEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental healthGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003-2004, the Asbestos Victims Association of Quebec undertook an exploratory sampling of the air and soil in the residential community of asbestos mining towns. In the 26 houses in the Thetford Mines area, 28 air samples were collected; one outdoor air sample was collected; 14 soil samples were taken; one dust sample was taken from a windowsill. The AHERA criterion was exceeded in 15 of the 28 air samples collected and the World Trade Center criterion was exceeded in five of 26 cases. The risk of developing asbestos-related cancer following such in-home exposures over 30 years is estimated at 1 in 10,000. Soil from the driveways or backyards of nine homes was covered with residue from a tailing pile. Of 14 samples, seven had chrysotile content in excess of 10%; in three, content exceeded 60%, and one reached 100%. Dust from the windowsill had a chrysotile content of 1.2 million structures of all lengths/sq cm. These results suggest a real public health threat in the Quebec mining areas.

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)0.000
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental HealthSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207