Bibliographic record
Abstract
The commercial exploitation of asbestos may be dated from the late 1870s, when Canada was the major world source. Reports of severe and fatal respiratory disease in workers in asbestos factories appeared in Britain (1898, 1906), and in France (1906) and Italy (1908). In 1912 the Canadian Department of Labour denied that the health of Quebec's millers and miners was affected. A series of denials appeared for over 40 years, until in 1955 a Thetford Mines medical officer reported finding that between 1945 and 1953, among some 4,000 asbestos workers 128 had asbestosis of various degrees of severity, 121 diagnosed radiographically, and 33 confirmed at autopsy. Although a committee of inquiry into health in the asbestos industry (1976), and a Royal Commission on health and safety arising in the use of asbestos in Ontario (1984) confirmed that disease had occurred, these findings were to have no adverse effects on asbestos exports. Rather, the inquiries constituted elements in the industry's successful public relations exercise that continues to operate to this day. Even when an increasing number of national bodies have legislated for total bans on asbestos use, a policy with which all the international bodies concerned with public health agree, the Canadian PR apparatus continues to be able to call on physicians and scientists prepared to oppose the consensuses reached by the independent advisors to these bodies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".