MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092485920 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2008.146241

Secondhand Smoke in Pennsylvania Casinos: A Study of Nonsmokers' Exposure, Dose, and Risk

2009· article· en· W2092485920 on OpenAlexaff
James Repace

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
FundersFlight Attendant Medical Research Institute
KeywordsEnvironmental healthCotinineSecondhand smokeMedicineSmokeIndoor air qualityUrineToxicologyWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceNicotine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: I assessed air pollution, ventilation, and nonsmokers' risk from secondhand smoke (SHS) in Pennsylvania casinos exempted from a statewide smoke-free workplace law. METHODS: I measured respirable suspended particles (RSPs), particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAHs), and carbon dioxide inside and outside casinos; measured changes in patrons' urine cotinine after casino visits; and assessed SHS impact on workers and patrons, using exposure-response models, air quality standards, and odor and irritation thresholds. RESULTS: PPAH and RSP concentrations in casinos were, on average, 4 and 6 times, respectively, that of outdoor levels despite generous ventilation and low smoking prevalence. SHS infiltrated into nonsmoking gaming areas. Patrons' urine cotinine increased 1.9 ng/mL on average after about 4-hour visits. CONCLUSIONS: SHS-induced heart disease and lung cancer will cause an estimated 6 Pennsylvania casino workers' deaths annually per 10,000 at risk, 5-fold the death rate from Pennsylvania mining disasters. Casinos should not be exempt from smoke-free workplace laws.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207