MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408646677 · doi:10.1179/107735202800338687

Carcinogenicity of Saccharin in Laboratory Animals and Humans: Letter to Dr. Harry Conacher of Health Canada

2002· article· en· W2408646677 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccharinEnvironmental healthPublic healthHuman healthUnit (ring theory)GarbageMedicineToxicologyPsychologyEngineeringBiologyPathologyWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate this opportunity to provide input to the Health Protection Branch's (HPB's) review of the artificial sweetener saccharin. Concerns with regard to the safety of saccharin are of great public health significance and of great interest to the public because saccharin is consumed by tens of millions of people, including children and fetuses. Any evidence of carcinogenesis--and there is ample such evidence--of such a widely used chemical should spur health officials to minimize human exposure to it. It is worth noting that on October 31, 1997, the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Toxicology Program, a unit of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), voted not to delist saccharin from its Report on Carcinogens.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0260.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.297
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental HealthSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207