MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076748429 · doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e318157d34a

Mortality and Cancer Experience of Quebec Aluminum Reduction Plant Workers, Part 2: Mortality of Three Cohorts Hired on or Before January 1, 1951

2007· article· en· W2076748429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Graham W. Gibbs, Ben Armstrong, Maurice Sevigny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerLung cancerBladder cancerStomach cancerDiseaseOccupational diseaseStomachInternal medicineCause of deathSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the mortality of Quebec aluminum smelter workers employed before 1951. METHODS: The mortality of 5,977 men hired at three plants on or before January 1, 1951 was compared with that of Quebec men. Relationships to benzo[a]pyrene, benzene-soluble material, and smoking were examined. RESULTS: Statistically significant causes of death were lung cancer (three plants); bladder cancer; chronic obstructive lung disease (two plants each); cancers of the stomach, digestive system unspecified, rectum and rectosigmoid, pancreas, and larynx; Alzheimer's disease (one plant); and cerebrovascular disease (one plant). Not significant increases were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality from cancer of the lung and bladder and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are related to exposure in Söderberg smelters. The cause of increased stomach cancer mortality is unclear. Excess mortality from some other diseases may be explained by factors other than coal tar pitch volatiles exposure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207