MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252688557

Correlations between U.S. county annual cancer incidence and population density.

2015· article· en· W2252688557 on OpenAlexaff
David A. E. Vares, Linda S. St-Pierre, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationIncidence (geometry)DemographyAffect (linguistics)Population densityCancer incidenceRange (aeronautics)BiologyEcologyGeographyPhysicsPsychologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population density implicitly involves specific distances between living individuals who exhibit biophysical forces and energies. Objective was to investigate major data bases of cancer incidence and population data to help understand the emergent properties of diseases that become apparent only when large populations and areas are considered. Correlation analyses of the annual incidence (years 2007 to 2011) of cancer in counties (2,885) of the U.S. and population densities were convergent with these quantitative predictions and suggested an inflection threshold around 50 people per square mile. The potential role of subtle or even "non-local" factors coupled to averaged population density in the viability and mortality of the human species may serve as alternative explanations to the attribution of malignancy to "chance" factors. Calculations indicated average distances between the electric force dipole of the brains or bodies of human beings generate forces known to affect DNA extension and when distributed over the Compton wavelength of the electron could produce energies sufficient to affect the binding of base nucleotides. An inclusive science of human ecology might benefit from considering subtle forces and energies associated with the individual members within the habitat that could determine the probability of cellular anomalies.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207