MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132464160 · doi:10.1093/annhyg/meh106

Worker Exposures to Triclopyr: Risk Assessment Through Measurements in Urine Samples

2005· article· en· W2132464160 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nathalie Gosselin, Robert C. Brunet, Gaétan Carrier, Amssétou Dosso

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Occupational Hygiene · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité de Montréal
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsTriclopyrUrineToxicologyBody weightAnimal scienceMedicineChemistryEnvironmental scienceBiologyGlyphosateEcologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the province of Quebec (Canada), the phytocide Garlon 4, whose active ingredient is triclopyr, is often used to prevent trees from reaching electrical conductors. The object of this paper is to assess the potential health risks in workers coming into contact with Garlon 4. Ten workers collected their urine during the 22 h following the beginning of a work shift. Measured urinary amounts of triclopyr varied between 1 and 13 mg. The absorbed daily doses were estimated from the amounts of triclopyr in urine through the use of a kinetic model that links the rates of triclopyr elimination to absorbed doses. These estimated doses were compared with the no-observed-effect level (NOEL) observed in rats: 5 mg per kg of body weight. The upper-bound estimations of the worker's daily absorbed doses were found to be 13.3% or less of the rat NOEL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Occupational HygieneSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207