Response to: ‘Reanalysis of non-occupational exposure to asbestos and the risk of pleural mesothelioma’ by Finkelstein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed the letter submitted by Finkelstein1 regarding our paper evaluating the risk of pleural mesothelioma from non-occupational asbestos exposure.2 Finkelstein indicated that, in addition to two Canadian studies in our analysis,3 4 a third unpublished report was produced in 2004 by Quebec Public Health.5 It is unclear if Finkelstein is suggesting that the Quebec report is an update to both Camus3 and McDonald,4 but it should be noted that although the study populations were similar, case ascertainment was different. Finkelstein1 cited that the historical progression of case ascertainment for pleural mesothelioma among women with neighbourhood exposure in the Quebec mining regions was 0 cases in 1980,4 7 cases in 19983 and 17 cases in 2004.5 However, in 2004, Quebec Public Health only reported a total of 10 cases of pleural mesothelioma among women …
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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".