Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".