MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799681608 · doi:10.1080/10773525.2018.1468130

Exposure assessment of non-electric ice resurfacer operators in indoor ice rinks: a pilot study

2017· article· en· W2799681608 on OpenAlexafffund
Travis McLennon, Chun‐Yip Hon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceIce creamFood scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure of ice resurfacer operators to indoor air contaminants was measured in six indoor ice arenas. A standardized questionnaire on technical and operational features was employed and indoor airborne concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were measured. Air samples were collected using a range of direct reading instruments attached to the driver’s seat of the resurfacer. The range of mean exposure concentrations via positional sampling (i.e. as close as able to the operator’s breathing zone) were 5.7–7.4 ppm, 694–2171 ppm, <0.5 to 0.5 ppm, and < 0.1 to 0.2 ppm, for CO, CO2, NO, and NO2, respectively. Exposure levels for SO2 and VOC were below detection. Overall, each of the measured indoor air contaminants was found to be below its respective occupational exposure limits (OEL), suggesting that the risk of hazardous exposure is low. The use of natural gas as a fuel source is believed to contribute to low contaminant concentrations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational and Environmental HealthSame topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207