Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paul Webster's News of the Week article “For precarious populations, pollutants present new perils” (14 March, p. [1642][1]) testifies to the sometimes difficult relationship between scientific discovery and public policy. In the case of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), however, increases in our understanding of the production, transport, fate, and impact of these toxic chemicals have often led to meaningful changes in public policy in Canada, Europe, and the United States. Perhaps the most important development in this regard is the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This global treaty places immediate, binding controls on 12 particularly pernicious POPs, often referred to as the “dirty dozen”; establishes scientifically based criteria for establishing controls on additional POPs; and mandates additional national and international research into POPs and their environmental and health impacts. Canada has long been a leading and influential advocate for international POPs science and policy. Its government should be encouraged to continue this leadership and to meet its research obligations under the Convention by continuing the important Arctic Science and the Northern Contaminants Program discussed in the article. In the United States and Europe, President Bush and other leaders should keep their promises to support full ratification and implementation of the Convention in their own countries and throughout the world. Science has shown us the problems. Policy-makers must now use that knowledge effectively. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.299.5613.1642b
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".