Bibliographic record
Abstract
TM2-O-01 Session Title: Society and the Environment Purpose: The International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE) annual conference held in South Africa in 2005 had a theme directed to setting a new global research agenda. Discussions were formally initiated on the topic. The purpose of this paper is to bring the summary findings to the attention of the broader community of environmental epidemiologists to stimulate discussion toward a new research agenda. Methods: All keynote speakers at the 2005 conference were made aware of the conference theme. Each presentation was attended, and anything that seemed even remotely appropriate for a new agenda was recorded and summarized in the closing plenary session. The hypothesis was that the existing agenda is far from equitable. Results: Distilled from the presentations, the developing world has much to contribute to research and practice in this filed, including special exposure circumstances and the study of which could serve to advance knowledge about etiology and intervention options for community action. The need to narrow the gap between developed and developing countries, as explicated through the Millennium Development Goals for 2015, was recognized. Opportunities for researchers in emerging economy countries are populations with special exposures and covariates as unusual doses of both “good” and “bad” pollutants, natural capital (including biodiversity), and legislative and constitutional frameworks conducive to prevention, and thus to ensuring a more sustainable planet. Conclusion: This work is but a start to arriving at a consensus for the kinds of research that might become priority areas for environmental epidemiologists. This opportunity to extend the discussion will advance agenda discussions so that a more formal undertaking by ISEE, perhaps in conjunction with the WHO, will emerge. The consequences for the future directions of environmental epidemiology research likely could be profound.
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 | 0.321 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.049 | 0.069 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.076 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".