MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020756171 · doi:10.1289/ehp.6343

Applying new biotechnologies to the study of occupational cancer--a workshop summary.

2004· article· en· W2020756171 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Toraason, Richard J. Albertini, Steven Bayard, William L. Bigbee, Aaron Blair, Paolo Boffetta, Stefano Bonassi, Steven Chanock, David C. Christiani, David A. Eastmond, Samuel Hanash, Carol J. Henry, Fred F. Kadlubar, Frank Mirer, Daniel W. Nebert, Stephen Rapport, Kathleen M. Rest, Nathaniel Rothman, Avima M. Ruder, Russell Savage, Paul A. Schulte, Jack Siemiatycki, Peter G. Shields, Martyn T. Smith, Paige E. Tolbert, Roel Vermeulen, Paolo Vineis, Sholom Wacholder, Elizabeth Ward, Michael J. Waters, Ainsley Weston

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As high-throughput technologies in genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics evolve, questions arise about their use in the assessment of occupational cancers. To address these questions, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the American Chemistry Council sponsored a workshop 8-9 May 2002 in Washington, DC. The workshop brought together 80 international specialists whose objective was to identify the means for best exploiting new technologies to enhance methods for laboratory investigation, epidemiologic evaluation, risk assessment, and prevention of occupational cancer. The workshop focused on identifying and interpreting markers for early biologic effect and inherited modifiers of risk.

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)0.000
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 score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207