MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Toxicological Evaluation for the Hazard Assessment of Tire Crumb for Use in Public Playgrounds

2003· article· en· W2139259920 on OpenAlexaff
Detlef Birkholz, Kathy Belton, Tee L. Guidotti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSpinal Cord Injury Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteHazardEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental hazardWaste managementHealth hazardHazard analysisHuman healthFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental healthEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringFisheryBiologyEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disposal of used tires has been a major problem in solid waste management. New uses will have to be found to consume recycled tire products. One such proposed use is as ground cover in playgrounds. However, concern has been expressed regarding exposure of children to hazardous chemicals and the environmental impact of such chemicals. We designed a comprehensive hazard assessment to evaluate and address potential human health and environmental concerns associated with the use of tire crumb in playgrounds. Human health concerns were addressed using conventional hazard analyses, mutagenicity assays, and aquatic toxicity tests of extracted tire crumb. Hazard to children appears to be minimal. Toxicity to all aquatic organisms (bacteria, invertebrates, fish, and green algae) was observed; however, this activity disappeared with aging of the tire crumb for three months in place in the playground. We conclude that the use of tire crumb in playgrounds results in minimal hazard to children and the receiving environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations72
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207