MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096565880 · doi:10.1177/107049602237156

Too Close for Comfort? The Proximity of Industrial Hazardous Wastes to Local Populations in Tijuana, Baja California

2002· article· en· W2096565880 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Kopinak, Ma. Del Rocio Barajas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Environment & Development · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteBusinessPreferencePopulationEnvironmental planningEnvironmental healthGeographyEngineeringWaste managementEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article assesses the location within Tijuana, Baja California, of those industrial hazardous wastes reported in compliance with the law in 1998. Although only a little more than 10% are high risk and very high risk, the plants generating the riskiest wastes hire the most employees and are clustered next to areas of population density and the highest concentrations of children younger than 14. Patterns of proximity are explained in terms of the decisions of key people such as maquiladora managers, engineers, and urban developers. The majority of workers prefer their workplace located close to home, although parents with children at home express much less preference. Longtime residents and those with better jobs live farther away. The actions of civil society groups to inform and empower affected communities are reviewed, especially in the case of abandoned hazardous waste. Policies for avoiding and reducing risks and directions for future research are recommended.

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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Environment & DevelopmentSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207