Health Assessment of Residents Residing Near Oil Batteries in the Tilston, Manitoba Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive Summary 3Conclusions 4Recommendations 51.0 Background 62.0 Terms of Reference 63.0 Data Collection Instruments 74.0 Review of Work Process 85.0 Potential Emissions From the Batteries 86.0 Environment Exposure Objectives 97.0 Toxicology of Compounds of Concern 97.1 Hydrogen Sulfide 97.2 Sulfur Dioxide 137.3 Other Potential Exposures 138.0 Review of Available Environmental Monitoring Data 148.1 Tilston Air Quality: Summary of air quality monitoring programin July/98 to Aug/99 148.2 Tilston Air Quality Update #2: November 1999 to mid January 2000 158.3 Tilston Air Quality Update #3: January to February 2000 168.4 Tilston Air Quality Update #4: March to April 2000 168.5 Tilston Air Quality: Estimates of maximum concentrations of air contaminantsin the past 178.6 EnTec environmental report prepared for Tundra Oil and Gas on sourceemission testing on February 23 and 24, 1999 178.7 Assessment of Monitoring Data 189.0 Identification of Significant Potential Exposures Emanating FromOil Batteries in the Tilston Area 1810.0 Health Evaluation 1910.1 Background 1910.2 Methodology 1910.2.1 Questionnaire and Examination 1910.2.2 Analysis 2010.2.2.1 Symptom-based analysis 2110.2.2.2 Person-based analysis 2310.3 Results 2410.3.1 Symptom-based results 2410.3.2 Person-based results 2410.3.3 Medical examination results 2510.4 Discussion of Results 2610.5 Additional Comments from the Interviews 2811.0 Conclusions 2912.0 Recommendations 30References 31Table 1 32Table 2 33Figure 1 34Figure 2 35Appendix 1 36 to 39
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".