MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088528091 · doi:10.1109/mp.2003.1180937

Electromagnetics - the uncertain health risks

2003· article· en· W2088528091 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Potentials · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecautionary principleRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementUncertaintyAction (physics)Public healthOrder (exchange)Scientific evidenceActuarial scienceRisk assessmentPreventive actionFace (sociological concept)Human healthBusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental healthComputer securityMedicineMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering all the evidences to date in the scientific literature, an association between EM fields at the environmental levels and harmful effects to human is inconclusive or uncertain. However, the available evidences are enough to raise concern by certain segments of the public. In order to manage health risk in the face of scientific uncertainty, authorities may be persuaded to consider precautionary approaches while establishing safety standards and protection guidelines for EM fields. The precautionary principle is another management tool that could be adopted to deal with the health risks associated with EM exposure. It is an extremely conservative decision making principle that leads to prudent actions in the face of uncertainty. Where there is reasonable risk to the public, a prudent action to reduce the risk should be carried out. This procedure should hold even when the scientific proof is inconclusive as long, as the balance of quantitative and qualitative risk, benefit and cost of action justifies it.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.277 · 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