MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130033512 · doi:10.1080/10473220390244667

Characterization of Chemical Exposures in Hairdressing Salons

2003· article· en· W2130033512 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Police Service
FundersUniversity of Birmingham
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Materials scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workers in hairdressing salons are exposed to several hundred chemicals, of which a few are possibly detrimental to pregnant workers or their fetuses. In Quebec, a government program provides protective reassignment for exposed pregnant workers. This study was set up to assist public health physicians by describing the exposure levels for ingredients that were measurable (i.e., airborne), selected from a list of possibly detrimental hairdressing ingredients. Twenty-six salons were sampled in Montreal, Canada, between June 1996 and December 1997. At the time of sampling, information on certain work conditions (e.g., chemical services offered, number of clients, average CO(2) level during the day) was also noted. Fifty percent of the salons provided additional services other than hairdressing, such as manicures, pedicures, or beauty treatments. Almost half of the salons were quite small, with less than 5 employees. Average temperature ranged between 17 and 26 degrees C, relative humidity between 18 and 59 percent and average CO(2) concentrations from 583 to 4301 mg/m(3). Duration of samples varied between 15 minutes and 8 hours. The most prevalent chemicals were alcohols: ethanol, at an average personal concentration of 39.9 mg/m(3), and isopropanol at an average personal concentration of 3.1 mg/m(3). Acetone, toluene, and acetates, all related to manicure services, were also measured in small quantities. An empirical mathematical model brought in evidence that CO(2) levels explained 46 percent of variation in the concentration of ethanol; when number of permanent waves done during the day and relative humidity and temperature were added, the resulting model explained 68 percent of the variations in ethanol. Thus, although the measured concentrations of chemicals were fairly low in this study, it appears possible that on very busy days, especially if other chemical services are performed in the salon, the total mixture of airborne chemicals could reach significant concentrations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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