Airborne Asbestos Fibres in Steam Tunnels: A Qualitative Analysis by PLM and a Quantitative Analysis by PCOM and TEM/EDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A question often asked of industrial hygienists is whether or not asbestos fibres can be propagated by air draughts on altered insulating material. An occupational hygiene survey was conducted during the summer of 1999 throughout the steam tunnels of a university campus to determine airborne concentrations of asbestos fibres in order to answer this question. Results were compared with the so-called clearance test standard (0.01 f/ml used in the Province of Québec) for work liable to produce asbestos dust emission. Some 3.2% of the results were over the clearance test standard when airborne concentrations of asbestos fibres were determined by phase contrast optical microscopy. However, 41.9% of the results were over the clearance test standard when ambient samples were counted by transmission electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectroscopy (TEM/EDS) for asbestos fibres only and reached 48.4% for all TEM mineral fibres. Of the TEM/EDS results, 3.2% were >0.1 f/ml, the threshold limit value proposed by ACGIH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".