MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179748742 · doi:10.5864/d2015-018

Scoping review on the state of the environment reports in Ontario

2015· article· en· W2179748742 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ama Asabea Asare

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateDisseminationGuidelinePublic healthBusinessEnvironmental healthInformation DisseminationPublic relationsEnvironmental planningMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyNursingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the purview of the Ontario Public Health Standards, specifically the Environmental Health Program Standards, Boards of Health (BOHs) are required to identify and report potential public health risks, health hazards, and conditions that can affect healthy environments. BOHs often utilize State of the Environment (SOE) reports to fulfill this mandate. The purpose of SOE reports is to disseminate vital information regarding the status of environmental factors that can impact human health and their related effects. Currently, BOHs in Ontario do not use a common approach to SOE reporting. A scoping review methodology was adopted to evaluate the range of content and level of information covered within the most recent SOE reports from 14 BOHs. The scoping review provided an opportunity to catalogue common themes and information contained within each of the reports. This information was then used to create a framework that could serve as a guideline for future SOE reporting.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0380.074
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207