Evaluation of the sensitisation to grains and its pulmonary impact in employees of the port of Brest silos.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the sensitisation and levels of exposure to grains and its pulmonary impact ina population of Brest port silo employees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included exposed workers. The study consisted of clinical examination witha standardised questionnaire, blood samples, prick-tests, and spirometry tests. The atmospheric concentrationof total dust in the workplace was also associated. RESULTS: Eight workers were included in the study. No case of occupational asthma was found, but 3 casesof occupational rhinitis were noted and occupational prick-tests were positive in 4 cases. The mean totaldust concentration in the three atmospheric samples was 4.87 mg/m3 for 8 hours but it was under thedetection limits for alveolar fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Port silo workers are exposed to total dust concentrations below the French legal limit (10 mg/m3) but higher than Canadian and American recommendations. Levels of exposure in our studyare similar to other studies developed in port silos. Symptoms developed by workers may be due to highexposure to dust with an irritant effect rather than an allergic effect. Despite this fact, a specific medicalsurvey is needed, and ventilation and respiratory masks have to be promoted for prevention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".