Strategies for assessing the implications of malformed frogs for environmental health.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent increase in the incidence of deformities among natural frog populations has raised concern about the state of the environment and the possible impact of unidentified causative agents on the health of wildlife and human populations. An open workshop on Strategies for Assessing the Implications of Malformed Frogs for Environmental Health was convened on 4-5 December 1997 at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The purpose of the workshop was to share information among a multidisciplinary group with scientific interest and responsibility for human and environmental health at the federal and state level. Discussions highlighted possible causes and recent findings directly related to frog deformities and provided insight into problems and strategies applicable to continuing investigation in several areas. Possible causes of the deformities were evaluated in terms of diagnostics performed on field amphibians, biologic mechanisms that can lead to the types of malformations observed, and parallel laboratory and field studies. Hydrogeochemistry must be more integrated into environmental toxicology because of the pivotal role of the aquatic environment and the importance of fates and transport relative to any potential exposure. There is no indication of whether there may be a human health factor associated with the deformities. However, the possibility that causal agents may be waterborne indicates a need to identify the relevant factors and establish the relationship between environmental and human health in terms of hazard assessment.
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".