Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH(R)) proposed a Threshold Limit Value (TLV(R)) of 0.5 mg/m(3) for flour dust with a sensitization notation. The Labour Program of the Department of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), following notice of the intention to set a TLV, conducted a study of the levels of exposure to flour dust in flour mills across Canada to verify existing conditions, as well as to decide whether to adopt the proposed TLV or reference some other value. As part of the study, a relationship between flour dust concentrations obtained by using Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) samplers and closed-face 37-mm cassettes was examined and the literature on the health effects of exposure to flour dust was reviewed. A total of 104 millers, packers, sweepers, bakery mix operators, and others (mixed tasks) from 14 flour mills were sampled over an 8-hour work shift using IOM samplers. The results indicate that 101 employees (97.1%) were exposed to levels exceeding 0.5 mg/m(3), 66 employees (67.3%) to levels exceeding 5 mg/m(3), and 44 employees (42.3%) to levels exceeding 10 mg/m(3). For comparison purposes, flour dust measurements were also taken in a highly automated flour mill using state-of-the-art technology. The results suggest that even with the most up-to-date technology and proper cleaning operations in place, the flour milling industry may not be able to reduce the flour dust levels to below the TLV of 0.5 mg/m(3). According to the measurements of inhalable and total dust concentrations, the IOM sampler appears to be a more efficient collector of inhalable airborne particles up to 100 microm than the closed-face 37-mm cassette.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".