MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074030704 · doi:10.2190/57tn-gxkf-ptj5-x5w2

Report from Morelia: Towards the Formation of “The Observatory of the Americas”

2002· article· en· W2074030704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos Eduardo Siqueira, Charles Levenstein, Gregory F. DeLaurier

Bibliographic record

VenueNEW SOLUTIONS A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health and Social Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservatoryGeographyArchaeologyGeologyAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “First Conference on Occupational and Environmental Health under the Framework of Integration of the Americas” was held on August 13-16, 2000 at the Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, state of Michoacan, Mexico. The conference had two broad and related purposes. The first was to bring together representatives from academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, as well as public policy-makers, from South, Central, and North America to exchange information and views about worker and community health in the region of the Americas. While not completely successful in this effort, as most of those attending were health and safety professionals, participants also included representatives from Mexican and U.S. community groups and environmental coalitions as well as others from the Canadian Auto Workers, Canada’s largest private sector labor union. The second purpose of the conference was to lay the foundation for the creation of a permanent and on-going “Observatory of the Americas.” The Observatory is envisioned as a network of professionals and activists in occupational and environmental health that would serve as a tool for international cooperation and solidarity among the different institutions and efforts taking place in the Americas

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNEW SOLUTIONS A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health PolicySame topicPublic Health and Social InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207