Bibliographic record
Abstract
15 healthy adults (5 women, 10 men) have been exposed to each of four experimental conditions: rebreathing of air or carbon monoxide, and the smoking of two low-nicotine (0.3 mg) or medium-nicotine (1.2 mg) cigarettes. The dose of carbon monoxide selected (80 ml) had no effect on resting heart rate or electrocardiogram, nor did it modify the exercise heart rate, ventilation, oxygen consumption or electrocardiogram. Both types of cigarette produced variable changes in the blood carboxyhaemoglobin level, increments being greatest in heavy smokers, and least in former smokers, pipe and cigar smokers, Gains of carboxyhaemoglobin were less with low-nicotine than with medium-nicotine cigarettes. Both types of cigarette produced some increase of resting heart rate, but the smoking of two cigarettes was insufficient to modify the exercise heart rate, ventilation, or oxygen consumption. The electrocardiogram also showed no signs of ischaemia during either rest or effort. It is suggested that, for the light and moderate smoke, the 'safest' cigarette may be one with a low tar and a very low nicotine yield. On the present data, this would also induce only small increments of blood carboxyhaemoglobin levels.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".