MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089074853 · doi:10.1093/aje/154.12.s78

Particulate Air Pollution Standards and Morbidity and Mortality: Case Study

2001· review· en· W2089074853 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David S. Greenbaum, Jan Bachmann, Daniel Krewski, James M. Samet, Robert S. White, Ronald E. Wyzga

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth CanadaJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAmerican Lung AssociationElectric Power Research InstituteJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsPublic healthParticulatesEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthNavyAir pollutionAir quality indexAgency (philosophy)MedicineGerontologyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceGeographyLawMeteorologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Received for publication May 23, 2001, and accepted for publication August 30, 2001. Abbreviations: CASAC, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency; PM 10 , standard for coarse particulate matter; PM 2.5 , standard for fine particulate matter. 1 Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA. 2 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 3 Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4 Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 5 American Lung Association, Washington, DC. 6 The Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Reprint requests to Mr. Daniel Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute, Charlestown Navy Yard, 120 Second Avenue, Boston, MA 02129-4533 (e-mail: Dgreenbaum@healtheffects.org). EPIDEMIOLOGY AT THE CENTER OF A HIGHLY-VISIBLE NATIONAL DEBATE

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207