MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942305547 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.39.4.05

At-a-glance - Pollens, climate and allergies: Quebec initiatives

2019· article· en· W2942305547 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isabelle Demers, Pierre Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecOuranosMinistère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbrosia artemisiifoliaRagweedGovernment (linguistics)AllergyPollenClimate changeUnderpinningGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental healthMedicineEcologyBiologyImmunologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollen allergies are a major source of seasonal allergic rhinitis in North America. This type of rhinitis affects 17% of adults in Quebec, a marked increase in the last 30 years. Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) pollens are responsible for 50% to 90% of rhinitis cases. Climate change has played a significant role in the increased prevalence of seasonal allergic rhinitis over the last few decades. In 2015, the Quebec government put in place a strategy to tackle this problem, the Stratégie québécoise de réduction de l'herbe à poux et des autres pollens allergènes [Quebec strategy to reduce ragweed and other allergenic pollens]. Based on solid evidence, the Strategy advocates for co-operation between stakeholders and the integration of control measures into the maintenance practices of municipalities and other large public and private landowners. This article presents the scientific data underpinning the Strategy and initial successes of the action taken under the Strategy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in CanadaSame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207