MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134021294 · doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029215.882

Advocating for safer products in Canada

2010· article· en· W2134021294 on OpenAlexaffabout
P Fuselli

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsTD Bank Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationProduct (mathematics)SAFERProduct liabilityBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Consumer safetyConsumer protectionOccupational safety and healthCommissionPoison controlEnvironmental healthMarketingLiabilityMedicineLawFinanceRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securityCommercePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injuries to children from use of consumer products are common, frequently serious & sometimes fatal. Survey results show that the vast majority of Canadians believe that if a product is available for sale on the market, it is safe or has been adequately tested for safety. In Canada, this is not necessarily the case since many products, including substandard imports, can pose a dangerous risk of injury. In Canada, there are more than 18 000 annual emergency room visits for children as a result of product related injuries. Canada's current consumer product safety legislation is over 40 years old. Bill C-6, the proposed new Canadian consumer product safety legislation, is a positive step that includes three main pillars; active prevention, targeted oversight & rapid response to enforce mandatory recall of hazardous products. Changes to current legislation would renew, enhance & modernise consumer product safety in Canada to better reflect the globalise marketplace and be consistent with societal & consumer expectations for health and safety. The United States recently renewed product safety legislation with The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 2008. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission is currently working with industry on effective implementation. Safe Kids Canada has worked to support the passage of Bill C-6 while industry & special interest groups have strenuously lobbied government & the Senate for amendments that weaken the proposed legislation. This presentation will review experiences, successes and challenges in Canada & the United States in advocating & implementing for safer consumer products through renewed legislation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0270.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207