MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035233785 · doi:10.1191/0960327102ht218oa

Defining hormesis: comments on Calabrese and Baldwin (2002)

2002· letter· en· W2035233785 on OpenAlexaff
Peter M. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman & Experimental Toxicology · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Environment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHormesisDarwinismToxicologyBiologyEvolutionary biologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The definition of hormesis should not include non-scientific judgments as to beneficial or harmful effects. Evaluating the significance of hormesis is a separate issue that ultimately requires risk:risk comparisons, particularly since the evolutionary basis for hormesis appears to be Lamarkian rather than Darwinian. It is arguable whether 'hormesis' is the correct umbrella term for all low-dose exposure responses, in particular those at higher organization levels than single species, or whether it includes arousal responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0860.061
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman & Experimental ToxicologySame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207