MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943062665 · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.053

Improving environmental risk assessments of chemicals: Steps towards evidence-based ecotoxicology

2019· article· en· W2943062665 on OpenAlexaff
Olwenn Martin, Julie E. Adams, Amy Beasley, Scott E. Belanger, Roger L. Breton, Theo C.M. Brock, Vito A. Buonsante, Malyka Galay Burgos, John Green, Patrick D. Guiney, Tilghman Hall, Mark L. Hanson, Meagan J. Harris, Tala R. Henry, Duane B. Huggett, Marion Junghans, Ryszard Laskowski, Gerd Maack, Caroline Moermond, Grace H. Panter, Anita Pease, Véronique Poulsen, Mike Roberts, Christina Rudén, Christian E. Schlekat, Ilse Schoeters, Keith R. Solomon, Jane Staveley, Bill Stubblefield, John P. Sumpter, Michael St. J. Warne, Randall S. Wentsel, James R. Wheeler, Brian A. Wolff, Kunihiko Yamazaki, Holly M Zahner, Marlene Ågerstrand

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
FundersSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
KeywordsEcotoxicologyVariety (cybernetics)Risk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental risk assessmentEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceToxicologyBiologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few would argue that regulatory decisions related to chemical substances, whether pre-market authorisations, setting of health-based reference values and environmental quality standards, or prioritizing for future testing and management measures, ought to be based on less than all reliable and relevant evidence

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0160.013
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.010

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment InternationalSame topicChemistry and Chemical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207