Multi-jurisdictional expert opinion for improving children's environmental health protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expert opinion from Canada, the United States and European Union countries was solicited to examine the regulatory and non-regulatory approaches used to protect children's environmental health. Thirty-five experts were interviewed by telephone from June 2004 to March 2005 using an open-ended survey questionnaire. Experts were asked to name legislative and non-legislative tools used to protect children's environmental health in their jurisdiction as well as the effectiveness of approaches taken, barriers, facilitators, methods of evaluation, and recommendations for improving children's health protection. A number of common themes were revealed by experts in different countries as well as novel approaches that could be used to improve children's environmental health. Determining what types of governance and non-governance instruments are most effective based on experience from other jurisdictions, allows for the determination of common, effective, policy choice from shared children's health environmental risks. It also provides a broad classification of different approaches that have been used for children's environmental health. Three main areas suggested for strengthening children's environmental health protection included: research and surveillance, institutional organization, and regulatory capacity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".