MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509599044 · doi:10.1136/oemed-2016-103951.299

S10-2 Carex canada: innovations and applications

2016· article· en· W2509599044 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul A. Demers, Cheryl Peters, Hugh Davies, MCalvin B Ge, Amy Hall, Joanne Kim, Jill Hardt, Alison Palmer, Anne‐Marie Nicol

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOccupational Cancer Research CentreWorld Wildlife Fund CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarexOccupational exposureJob-exposure matrixEnvironmental healthBusinessEnvironmental scienceGeographyMedicineBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten years ago the CAREX Canada project was initiated with the objective of identifying how many Canadians are exposed to workplace and environmental carcinogens as well as how and where they are exposed. While the occupational component of the project was largely based on the European CAREX project, CAREX Canada sought to incorporate a number of innovations based on the Finnish job exposure matrix (FinJEM), other CAREX projects such as Costa Rica’s, and large exposure database projects that were being initiated at the time. CAREX Canada sought to enhance the original CAREX model in two major ways. First, prevalence of exposure was assessed based on both industry (328 categories) and occupation (520 categories), using much finer groups than previous projects. This allowed for both better assessment of exposure and a finer level of reporting for targeting prevention efforts. Second, where possible, levels of exposure were estimated as three categories of low, medium, and high using cut-points based on occupational exposure limits. To facilitate this classification, the Canadian Workplace Exposure Database was created, using several hundred thousand measurements acquired from regulatory agencies. For example, we estimated that 380,000 workers are exposed to crystalline silica, 14% high (>0.025 mg/m3), 39% moderate (0.0125–0.025 mg/m3), and 47% low. These enhancements have made CAREX Canada a much more effective tool for use in both prevention and, through creation of job exposure matrixes, epidemiologic applications. The greater granularity of the prevalence estimates and the availability of measured exposure levels for many common carcinogens have facilitated the use of this data for cancer surveillance and burden of cancer projects. Level of exposure estimation has been particularly useful, but has been limited to what can be called the “data-rich” exposures. This project has also provided a systematic means of identifying where significant data gaps exist.

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)0.018
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1890.050

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207