MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285281393

What Can We Learn from 21 Years of School Poisoningsin New Zealand?

2012· article· en· W2285281393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rhiannon Braund, Benny Pan, Lucy M Shieffelbien, Wayne A. Temple

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Environmental healthDemographyToxicologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Childhood poisoning is a significant international health concern. Very little is known about trends in exposures within schools and preschools. The objectives of this study were to investigate the data recorded by the New Zealand National Poisons Centre (NPC) on these types of exposures over a 21 year period (1989 to 2009) and to determine trends and propose strategies to reduce the exposures. Methods: Call information regarding human poison exposure at preschools and schools from Jan1st 1989 to Dec 31st 2009 were extracted from the dataset held by the NPC. The number of calls received by the NPC relating to the exposures was plotted against year as totals and then categorized according to gender. The number of calls related to each substance type for each year, and the number of calls related to each age group for each year were quantified. Results: There were 3632 calls over this period. In every year studied, there were more calls relating to males than females. Household items were responsible for 31% of exposures, followed by plants (20%), industrial items (14%) and therapeutic agents (14%). Almost one quarter of all exposures occurred in the 13 year old age group. Further investigation of this group, showed that the causes of exposures included “splash” incidents (27%), “pengestion” (pen breaking in mouth and releasing contents) (16%), “exploratory” (5%) and “prank” (4%). Conclusion: Identification of these areas allows recommendations to be made including feedback to teachers about exposure risks, storage and access of science, cleaning and art supplies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207