Transition vers des aérosols-doseurs sans CFC : comment s’y retrouver?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Bien que les CFC soient inoffensifs pour les patients, ils peuvent appauvrir la couche Le retrait des CFC a donc ete approuve et est guide par un accord international, le de Montreal relatif aux substances qui appauvrissent la couche d’ozone . Selon le calendrier prevu pour l’elimination progressive des CFC dans les medicaments, la production et l’importation de tout inhalateur a base de CFC seront interdites a compter de janvier 2005. Le HFA est un nouveau propulseur qui remplace les CFC. Bien qu’il soit securitaire a la fois pour les patients et pour l’environnement, certaines caracteristiques le distinguent des CFC et les utilisateurs doivent en etre avises. Abstract Even though CFCs are harmless to patients, they can damage the ozone layer. Withdrawal of CFCs has been approved and is guided by an international agreement, the Protocole de Montreal relatif a des substances qui appauvrissent la couche d’ozone. Based on the plan for the progressive elimination of CFC in drugs, the production and importation of CFC-propelled inhalers will be prohibited as of January 2005. HFA is a new form of propellant which will replace CFC. Although HFA is safe for both patients and the environment, some characteristics differenciate it from CFC and users have to be aware of those differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".