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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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