Determining size fractions of an aerosol in view of new definitions in polish regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Polish regulation of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy on the value of the maximum concentrations of harmful chemical and dust factors in the workplace introduced new definitions of aerosols, which is "inhalable fraction and respirable fraction in place of the total dust and respirable dust".Due to the modification of the definitions of aerosol fractions, it is necessary to verify methods for determining the inhalable and respirable fraction of the aerosol.The purpose of the studies leading to the determination of the inhalable fraction and the respirable fraction of the aerosol is to obtain validated and reliable exposure information to compare the exposure to the limit value.The most reliable results of occupational exposure assessment are obtained using an individual dosimetry method.The research was carried out at seven selected workstations where there was emitted, for example, wood dust or coal dust.Dust samples were collected in a breathing zone on a specially constructed stand containing a set of sampling heads along with individual aspirators.At each of the investigated workstations, samples of the inhalable fraction and respirable fraction of the dust were collected simultaneously using different sets of sampling heads capable of sampling with varying volume air flow.These studies were conducted to compare the various samplers currently available on the Polish market.IOM was used as a reference personal sampler.By analyzing the results, it was found that the IOM sampler at each workstation obtained similar values (at least four IOM heads were used in one test).The biggest discrepancies can be seen with the GSP 3.5 sampler.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".