MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089315719 · doi:10.1080/00039890009604041

Respiratory Health Impact of Working in Sawmills in Eastern Canada

2000· article· en· W2089315719 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yvon Cormier, Anne Mérlaux, Caroline Duchaine

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Environmental Health An International Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory systemHypersensitivity pneumonitisPulmonary function testingAsthmaEnvironmental healthSpirometryRespiratory diseaseLung functionLungImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air contamination in sawmills can cause respiratory health problems. The authors measured respirable dust, bacteria, endotoxins, and molds collected from 17 sawmills in eastern Canada. A total of 1,205 sawmill workers answered a respiratory-health questionnaire, and they all participated in lung-function measurements, skin-prick tests, and venous blood sampling for specific immunoglobulins against molds found in the sawmills. Workers had normal lung functions, and most respiratory symptoms could be explained by smoking histories. Workers in pine sawmills had a greater prevalence of positive skin-prick test to pine than did workers in sawmills where other woods were used. High levels of specific antibodies were seen in some workers. The presence of a positive skin-prick test and/or specific antibodies had no impact on lung function(s). These Quebec sawmill workers did not experience significant respiratory illnesses; however, some of these workers may be at a higher risk of developing asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis than nonworkers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations45
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Environmental Health An International JournalSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207