MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158872555 · doi:10.1093/aje/155.4.368

Individual Estimation of Exposures to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields in Jobs Commonly Held by Women

2002· article· en· W2158872555 on OpenAlexaffabout
J E Deadman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactory (object-oriented programming)PercentileMedicineWork (physics)Environmental healthOccupational exposureEngineeringComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposures to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields have not been documented extensively in occupations besides the work environments of electric or telephone utilities. A 1980-1993 study of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in Québec, Canada, gathered detailed information about the occupations of 491 mothers of ALL cases and mothers of a similar number of healthy controls. This information was combined with published data on the intensities of ELF magnetic fields associated with sources or work environments to estimate ELF magnetic field exposures for a wide range of jobs commonly held by women. Estimated exposures for 61 job categories ranged from 0.03 to 0.68 microT; the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were 0.135, 0.17, and 0.23 microT, respectively. By job category, the most highly exposed jobs (>0.23 microT) included bakery worker, cashier, cook and kitchen worker, electronics worker, residential and industrial sewing machine operator, and textile machine operator. By work environment, the most highly exposed job categories were electronics worker in an assembly plant (0.70 microT) and sewing machine operators in a textile factory (0.68 microT) and shoe factory (0.66 microT). These results provide new information on expected levels of exposure in a wide range of jobs commonly held by women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207