MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074128510 · doi:10.1080/00207450590523936

REDUCED LITTER SIZES FOLLOWING 48-H OF PRENATAL EXPOSURE TO 5 nT TO 10 nT,0.5 HZ MAGNETIC FIELDS: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUDDEN INFANT DEATHS

2005· article· en· W2074128510 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Dupont, G. H. Parker, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLitterPrenatal exposureEarth's magnetic fieldAnimal sciencePhysiologyInternal medicineMedicineMagnetic fieldGestationBiologyEndocrinologyPregnancyPhysicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To test the hypothesis that a narrow intensity band of geomagnetic activity contributes to Sudden Infant Death, 32 pregnant rats were exposed for two to three days before expected parturition either to a coil that generated 0.5 Hz sine-wave, 5 to 10 nanoTesla magnetic fields, or to a reference coil (<1 nT) in the same room. The field was off for 30 min every 4 h during the exposure. The orientation of the coils was perpendicular in space and activated alternately in four blocks of experiments. The litters born to the exposed mothers contained significantly fewer pups (M = 14.1,SD= 2.1) than those exposed to the control conditions (M = 16.2, SD = 2.7). There were significantly fewer numbers of males and fewer numbers of females in litters exposed to the fields generated in the east-west and north-south directions, respectively. These results support the hypothesis that a specific temporal configuration of brief periods of geomagnetic activity can produce an increased incidence of nonvital fetuses, neonates, or infants.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207