Dioxin risk reduction programme at the most severe dioxin hot spot in Vietnam: Residual knowledge, attitude and practices five years post intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien Hoa Airbase was one of the bulk storage and supply facilities for defoliants during the Vietnam War. Environmental and biological samples taken around the airbase have elevated levels of dioxin. In 2007, a pre-intervention knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) survey of local residents living in Trung Dung and Tan Phong wards was undertaken regarding appropriate strategies to reduce dioxin exposure. A risk reduction programme was implemented in 2008 and post-intervention KAP surveys were undertaken in 2009 and 2013 to evaluate the longer term impacts. Quantitative assessment was undertaken via a KAP survey in 2013 among 600 local residents randomly selected from the two intervention wards and one control ward (Buu Long). Eight in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions were also undertaken for qualitative assessment. Most programme activities had ceased and dioxin risk communication activities had not been integrated into local routine health education programmes; however, main results generally remained and were better than that in Buu Long. In total, 48.2% of households undertook measures to prevent exposure, higher than those in pre- and post-intervention surveys (25.8% and 39.7%) and the control ward (7.7%). Migration and the sensitive nature of dioxin issues were the main challenges for the programme's sustainability.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".