Letter to the Editor: “Comparing milled fiber, Quebec ore, and textile factory dust: Has another piece of the asbestos puzzle fallen into place?” by D. Wayne Berman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We read with interest Dr. Berman’s article “Comparing milled fiber, Quebec ore, and textile factory dust: Has another piece of the asbestos puzzle fallen into place?” (Berman, 2010). We agree with Dr. Berman’s conclusion that sizes of airborne asbestos fibers encountered in asbestos textile mills are very different and might entirely explain the discrepancy in the findings between the studies of the textile workers and miners. However, we do not agree with Dr. Berman’s analyses of our transmission electron microscope (TEM) data for the Charleston, South Carolina, asbestos textile plant to support his conclusion that airborne fiber size distributions within a given indus trial sector (e.g., textiles, friction products, cement, etc.) vary little by operation. We believe this conclusion is not consistent with known effects of asbestos textile produc tion operations, is not supported by prior studies, and is not consistent with results of studies of asbestos textile
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".