MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077342510 · doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1125-2

Open letter: draft regulation on endocrine-active chemicals

2013· letter· en· W2077342510 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel R. Dietrich

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Toxicology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en MilieuMedical Research CouncilTerveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitosInstytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. NoferaUmweltbundesamtDet Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns UniversitetUniversität WienUniversität KonstanzRijksuniversiteit GroningenFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western AustraliaUniversità degli Studi di PadovaUppsala UniversitetWageningen University and ResearchUniversiteit UtrechtTurun YliopistoDirectorate for Biological SciencesIstituto Superiore di SanitàTechnische Universität MünchenJulius-Maximilians-Universität WürzburgDivision of Environmental BiologyLeibniz-GemeinschaftKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftKarolinska InstitutetMedizinische Universität WienUniversity of AlbertaItä-Suomen YliopistoLeibniz-Institut für Arbeitsforschung an der TU DortmundUniversità degli Studi di MilanoOulun YliopistoEuropean Food Safety AuthorityInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleTechnische Universität Kaiserslautern
KeywordsEndocrine systemMedicineBusinessToxicologyPharmacologyInternal medicineHormoneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.2260.076
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.015

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueArchives of ToxicologySame topicChemistry and Chemical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207