Puzzling Elevation of Blood Lead Levels among Consumers of Freshwater Sportfish
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
The authors evaluated lead exposure of Canadians (Montreal) who fished the nearby St. Lawrence River. From screening interviews conducted with 1,118 fishers on-site during the winter and fall of 1996, the authors selected 60 Montrealers who consumed at least one sportfish meal per week and 72 who consumed less than one sportfish meal per week. Fishers at the higher level of sportfish consumption had elevated blood lead concentrations, compared with fishers who ate little sportfish (geometric mean = 57.4 microg/l vs. 48.2 microg/l, respectively; p < .05). This result was surprising inasmuch as fish is not considered a significant source of lead. In addition to sportfish consumption, age, sex, occupation, smoking, and waterfowl consumption also showed independent associations with blood lead levels. Among frequent (i.e., > or = 1 meal/wk) consumers of sportfish, ingestion of waterfowl was associated with higher blood lead levels (geometric mean = 69.4 microg/l vs. 51.8 microg/l, respectively; p < .05); this association was not present for infrequent consumers. In multivariate analysis, the association of higher blood lead levels with sportfish consumption could be accounted for in large part by waterfowl consumption among frequent consumers of sportfish.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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