Controversies in epidemiology of occupational asthma
Classification
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".
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiology is the study of the distribution, determinants and outcome of disease. In this article, the recently acquired knowledge of the epidemiology of occupational asthma is described, as well as current areas of controversy. Incidence figures obtained from field studies in high-risk workplaces, medicolegal statistics and sentinel programmes indicate that approximately 10% of adult-onset asthma is attributable to the workplace. The strategy to identify cases through questionnaires and tools that address functional, immunological and physiopathological issues needs to be improved. Although few in number and limited to a handful of workplaces, cohort studies found that the risk of developing occupational asthma is determined less by individual susceptibility (e.g. atopy, tobacco smoking, human leukocyte antigen phenotype) and more by the level of exposure to its causes; in general, the higher the exposure, the greater the risk, and, by implication, lowering the level of exposure reduces the incidence of disease. Occupational asthma can be used as a satisfactory model for the development of adult-onset asthma. There is a great need to develop intervention strategies through adequate surveillance programmes in high-risk workplaces.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it