Dermatitis in a particleboard manufacturing facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to wood dust and other chemicals used in particleboard manufacture may cause contact dermatitis. To assess the prevalence and nature of skin complaints in the refining and drying department of a particleboard manufacturing facility following introduction of a new process, workers were assessed by a physician, using a standardized questionnaire concerning symptoms, past and family history, workplace exposures, and use of protective equipment. Cutaneous examination and patch testing were then performed. Questionnaire results showed that workers complained of rash, nasal and eye irritation, as well as cough and bothersome odours. Cutaneous examination identified a heterogeneity of skin problems, with dermatitis being mainly irritant rather than allergic. Quaternium-15 (Dowicil 200) was the only allergen to which more than 1 individual reacted. Aside from the odours, exposure to wood dust could account for the other reported symptoms. Allergic reactions on patch testing were few and did not explain the dermatitis; most skin reactions were irritant. Recommendations to the company included improved dust control, through ventilation and personal hygiene measures, as well as protective clothing. The investigation highlights how the introduction of a new process may focus attention on health complaints that have been present for some time before.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".