Balancing risks in the management of contaminated first nations fisheries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1980s and 1990s, the Government of Canada closed and/or issued advisories for a number of shellfish fisheries in coastal areas of British Columbia because of dioxin contamination. Only the direct health risks (i.e., cancer) of consuming contaminated shellfish for the general population were considered by the Government in the formulation of risk management options. A focus on the direct risks does not provide an adequate basis for risk decisions as the countervailing risks which may be created from management measures may easily be overlooked. This study describes the potential health impacts of risk management options for aboriginal coastal peoples in the management of dioxin contamination. Gold River and Powell River in British Columbia, Canada, are the areas of focus. The cancer risks of consuming dioxin contaminated shellfish for these sites are estimated. To assess the countervailing risks of management decisions for comparison, a scenario was developed in which First Nations peoples substitute shellfish with store-bought foods in their diets in the event of a fishery closure or advisory. Increases in mortality due to coronary heart disease are estimated. The results suggest that the health risks of dietary changes among aboriginal peoples may be as significant as those related to eating dioxin contaminated shellfish.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".