MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010832348 · doi:10.1021/es070462d

Response to Comment on “Misinterpretation of Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Data with Implications for Risk Management”

2007· article· en· W2010832348 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samantha Rizak, Steve E. Hrudey

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationSocial mediaAltmetricsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceWeb of scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVCorrespondence/Rebut...Correspondence/RebuttalNEXTResponse to Comment on "Misinterpretation of Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Data with Implications for Risk Management"Samantha Rizak and Steve E. HrudeyView Author Information Monash University Melbourne, Australia Universtity of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaCite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 9, 3389–3390Publication Date (Web):March 30, 2007Publication History Received22 February 2007Published online30 March 2007Published inissue 1 May 2007https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es070462dhttps://doi.org/10.1021/es070462darticle-commentaryACS PublicationsCopyright © 2007 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use. Request reuse permissions This publication is free to access through this site. Learn MoreArticle Views225Altmetric-Citations1LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InRedditEmail PDF (44 KB) Get e-AlertscloseSUBJECTS:Drinking water,Pest control,Quality management,Safety,Water treatment Get e-Alerts

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207