Do Current Standards of Practice in Canada Measure What is Relevant to Human Exposure at Contaminated Sites? II: Oral Bioaccessibility of Contaminants in Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human health risk estimates for sites with contaminated soils are often based on the assumption that the outdoor soil sieved to < 250 μm is a reasonable surrogate for predicting exposures via incidental soil ingestion. In vitro bioaccessibility tests are also increasingly used to “improve” ingestion exposure predictions of contaminants at different sites. However, when considered in terms of factors that influence desorption of contaminants from particles and uptake into humans, available studies indicate that current “standards of practice” with respect to assays of oral bioaccessibility have a number of significant shortcomings, at least in Canada. These shortcomings are discussed and various factors that influence the assessment of bioaccessibility of contaminants in soils are examined. We finish with proposing some minimum data submission requirements to support the application and relevance of bioaccessibility assays at contaminated sites.
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 | 0.037 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".