MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084177721 · doi:10.1080/10937400601034613

Regulatory and Nonregulatory Strategies for Improving Children's Environmental Health in Canada

2007· review· en· W2084177721 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael G. Tyshenko, Jamie Benidickson, Michelle C. Turner, Lorraine Craig, Vic Armstrong, John Harrison, Daniel Krewski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of WaterlooInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureLegislationEnvironmental healthEnvironmental epidemiologyBusinessPublic economicsHealth policyPublic healthMedicineEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidemiological and toxicological studies established positive associations between environmental hazards and adverse child health outcomes, including cancer, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, developmental effects, low birth weight, and birth defects. The economic and societal costs associated with children's environmental health disorders were estimated to be substantial. The existence of knowledge gaps, lack of capacity, and the jurisdictional overlap of children's environmental health issues are some of the barriers that impede effective policy decision making. To improve children's environmental health and reduce economic and societal costs, current legislative frameworks could implement a series of amendments. The main federal, provincial, and municipal legislation used to protect children in Canada, either explicitly or implicitly, is reviewed. Recommendations for improving the existing framework for protecting and strengthening children's environmental health are proposed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part BSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207