MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555220437 · doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0198-9

Portable air cleaners should be at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke

2016· letter· en· W2555220437 on OpenAlexafffund
Prabjit Barn, Catherine T. Elliott, Ryan W. Allen, Tom Kosatsky, Karen Rideout, Sarah B. Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityBC Centre for Disease Control
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsParticulatesSmokeEnvironmental healthPublic healthAir quality indexIndoor air qualityEnvironmental scienceDoorsAir pollutionEnvironmental planningWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringMedicineEngineeringGeographyMeteorologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landscape fires can produce large quantities of smoke that degrade air quality in both remote and urban communities. Smoke from these fires is a complex mixture of fine particulate matter and gases, exposure to which is associated with increased respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The public health response to short-lived smoke events typically advises people to remain indoors with windows and doors closed, but does not emphasize the use of portable air cleaners (PAC) to create private or public clean air shelters. High efficiency particulate air filters and electrostatic precipitators can lower indoor concentrations of fine particulate matter and improve respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes. We argue that PACs should be at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke events.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0570.051
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations75
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental HealthSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207