MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743977699 · doi:10.1021/cen-09510-govcon001

Groups call for ban on lead in hair dyes

2017· article· en· W2743977699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Britt E. Erickson

Bibliographic record

VenueC&EN Global Enterprise · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHair dyesCosmeticsScalpHair shaftLead (geology)BusinessHair careEuropean unionLead acetateChemistryToxicologyMedicineDermatologyOrganic chemistryBiologyHair follicle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A coalition of public health advocates is urging FDA to ban the use of lead acetate in hair dyes sold in the U.S. The group filed a petition on Feb. 27 requesting FDA to reverse a decision made in 1980 that allows up to 6,000 ppm lead in such dyes. Lead acetate, which is neurotoxic and carcinogenic, is banned in hair dyes sold in Canada and the European Union. FDA, however, allows its use as long as the product includes a warning label and is used only on the scalp and not facial hair. Lead acetate is found in a few men’s hair dyes sold in the U.S., but it is typically not in hair dyes intended for women. The chemical darkens gray hair when used for several days. “It is unacceptable that as we struggle to remove lead contamination in our water supplies and old homes, we still allow

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueC&EN Global EnterpriseSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207