Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicians and parents need to appreciate and act on the fact that children are more vulnerable to potential environmental dangers than adults, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (www.cape.ca) says. To help meet this need, CAPE has launched the Children's Environmental Health Project Web site (children .cape.ca), a primer and practical guide for physicians and other health care professionals. “Children are not little adults,” says Dr. Kapil Khatter, CAPE's executive director. “We know that, for many reasons, children have greater risk of exposure and harm compared with adults.” For instance, today's children will be exposed to more chemicals for longer periods than children from any previous generation. As well, their developing organs and tissues are more vulnerable to harm from exposure to toxic substances and they are unable to act on their own to avoid exposure. The Web site concentrates on prevention and health promotion by studying chronic low-level exposure to a range of potential environmental dangers, from chemical and metal pollutants to pesticides and tobacco smoke. Its key component is the instruction on taking an environmental history. “We explain why these questions are important and may raise red flags,” says Khatter. The Canadian Institute of Children's Health site (www.cich.ca) reports on ways to protect family health and features articles on potential links to health problems, and exposures to mould and various chemicals. The site also includes the Canadian Directory of Children's Environmental Health. The multidisciplinary US Children's Environmental Health Network (www.cehn.org) provides extensive information and resources, including a resource guide and a training manual on pediatric environmental health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.338 | 0.129 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".