Asbestos Fibres in the Lungs of an American Mechanic Who Drilled, Riveted, and Ground Brake Linings: A Case Report and Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America and Europe, the use of asbestos in friction products was discontinued before the end of the 20th century. In the developing world, the use of asbestos-containing friction products continues. In 2010, Cely-Garcia and colleagues (Cely-Garcia et al., 2012) sampled three brake repair shops located in Bogota, Colombia. Both asbestos and non-asbestos containing brake linings were sold separately or attached to a shoe. When brake linings are sold separated from the shoe, they must be manipulated to attach them to the shoe before installation. The process starts with the removal of the old brake shoe from the vehicle's brake drum. If the existing brake shoe is to be reused, the old lining needs to be removed and the old shoe must be ground to prepare it for a new lining. Riveting requires drilling holes in the linings and shoes and before installing rivets, the lining must be countersunk. The borders of the lining are bevelled. On some occasions, the entire exposed surface of the lining is ground to make it thinner. Once attached to the shoe, the edges of brake linings may extend beyond the shoe. In this case, it is necessary to cut or grind the edges to match the lining to the shoe before bevelling or grinding. The authors reported that 'the sampling results indicate that the brake mechanics sampled are exposed to extremely high asbestos concentrations (i.e. based on transmission electron microscopy counts), suggesting that this occupational group could be at excess risk of asbestos-related diseases'.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".