MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042503082 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v72i0.23049

Future human health research directions for the Canadian Northern Contaminants Program

2013· article· en· W2042503082 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shawn G. Donaldson, Meredith S. Curren, Bryan Adlard, Jonathan Provost, Tara Leech, Constantine Tikhonov, Mark Feeley, Scott Tomlinson, Russel Shearer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev CanadaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman healthArcticThe arcticEnvironmental healthEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental sciencePollutantContaminationFoundation (evidence)Environmental planningGeographyEcologyMedicineArchaeologyBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies conducted in the mid-1980s and early 1990s demonstrated that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and metals were reaching the Arctic ecosystem at unexpectedly high levels, many of which had no Arctic or Canadian sources. Epidemiological and toxicological studies in Canada and in other countries have found that these contaminants may pose a risk to human health. The objective of this paper is to provide the foundation for the discussion on future northern human health research under the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) in Canada. This short discussion of human health priorities will help guide a path forward for future northern human health research in Canada to address on-going and new health concerns related to contaminants exposure in the Canadian Arctic.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207