World Health Organization’s International Radon Project
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following initial in vitro and in vivo studies and important studies of uranium miners, scientists have now completed impressive case-control studies of lung cancer risk from exposure to residential radon. Researchers have pooled these studies, in which all the information from the individual studies was reanalyzed. These pooled analyzes confirm that in the context of residential exposure, radon is now an established risk factor for lung cancer. Many of the initial uncertainties have been reduced, and health risk assessors are now confident that radon may contribute to as much as 10% of the total burden of lung cancer--that is, 2% of all cancers in the population, worldwide. To reduce residential radon lung cancer risk, national authorities must have methods and tools based on solid scientific evidence and sound public health policies. To meet these needs, the World Health Organization (WHO) has initiated the WHO International Radon Project. This three year project, to be implemented during the period 2005-2008, will include (1) a worldwide database on national residential radon levels, radon action levels, regulations, research institutions, and authorities; (2) public health guidance for awareness-raising and mitigation; and (3) an estimation of the global burden of disease (GDB) associated with radon exposure.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it