MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2735827428

Chemicals Aren't People. They Shouldn't Be Presumed Innocent

2017· article· en· W2735827428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lynda Collins, Dayna Nadine Scott, David Boyd

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject commissioningPublishingPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessAdvertisingMedia studiesEngineeringSociologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A parliamentary committee review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act — our most important environmental law — has largely flown under the radar. But there are enormous implications for the health of Canadians living today, and in the future, contained in the reforms recommended in the majority report released last week by the Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.\nAs law professors who have studied the regulation of toxic chemicals in Canada for many years, we urge Parliament to embrace these recommendations as a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

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)0.012
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.022
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.013

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory and advancements in chemistry→French-language works237,207→