MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089012355 · doi:10.1179/oeh.2000.6.3.194

Cancer Mortality among Males in Relation to Exposures Assessed through a Job-exposure Matrix

2000· article· en· W2089012355 on OpenAlexaffabout
T. Weston, Kristan J. Aronson, Jack Siemiatycki, Geoffrey R. Howe, Louise Nadon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson regressionMedicineDemographyLung cancerJob-exposure matrixRelative riskCancerProstate cancerEnvironmental healthWorkforceOccupational exposureOncologyPopulationConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To identify potential associations between workplace exposures and cancer mortality risks, job titles collected from 1965 to 1971 for 58,678 men (a subset of a large representative sample of the Canadian workforce) were transformed into probable chemical exposures using a job-exposure matrix developed in Montreal. Mortality follow-up was determined through computerized record linkage with the National Mortality Database in Canada for 1965-1991. Cancer mortality risk was evaluated at two levels of exposure, any and substantial, using Poisson regression controlling for age, calendar period, and social class. Among the 58,678 men, 3,160 died of cancer. Using a liberal reporting criterion, relative risk (RR) >1.0, five or more exposed cancer deaths, p < or = 0.100, several potential associations were identified, including: lung cancer and any exposure to abrasives dust (RR = 2.84), prostate cancer and any exposure to calcium carbonate (RR = 2.46), and prostate cancer and substantial exposure to metallic dust (RR = 2.13).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental HealthSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207