Risk Communication of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Improving Knowledge Translation and Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public perception of the negative effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals appears to be higher compared to other chemical pollutants, due to (1) chronic, low-probability effects, and (2) uncertainties about which biological effects may be relevant for human health. Individuals, both expert and lay public, require credible, trustworthy, and understandable information about the scientific evidence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in order to make informed risk decisions. The creation of a dedicated web site, http://www.emcom.ca, as a tool for knowledge translation and transfer provides the general public with access to scientific experts and bridges the gap between experts and nonexperts through a two-way, interactive communications approach. By obtaining accurate and credible information, individuals can make better-informed decisions concerning endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
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 | 0.082 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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".