MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988797493 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxz077

Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling of Individual Expert Assessments in the Development of a General-Population Job-Exposure Matrix

2019· article· en· W2988797493 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐François Sauvé, Marie‐Pierre Sylvestre, Marie‐Élise Parent, Jérôme Lavoué

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research Council CanadaHealth CanadaInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du TravailCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsBayesian probabilityStatisticsPopulationJob-exposure matrixHierarchyMathematicsEconometricsComputer scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CANJEM job-exposure matrix compiles expert evaluations of 31 673 jobs from four population-based case-control studies conducted in Montreal. For each job, experts had derived indices of intensity, frequency, and probability of exposure to 258 agents. CANJEM summarizes the exposures assigned to jobs into cells defined by occupation/industry, agent, and period. Some cells may, however, be less populated than others, resulting in uncertain estimates. We developed a modelling framework to refine the estimates of sparse cells by drawing on information available in adjacent cells. Bayesian hierarchical logistic and linear models were used to estimate the probability of exposure and the geometric mean (GM) of frequency-weighted intensity (FWI) of cells, respectively. The hierarchy followed the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO) classification structure, allowing for exposure estimates to be provided across occupations (seven-digit code), unit groups (four-digit code), and minor groups (three-digit code). The models were applied to metallic dust, formaldehyde, wood dust, silica, and benzene, and four periods, adjusting for the study from which jobs were evaluated. The models provided estimates of probability and FWI for all cells that pulled the sparsely populated cells towards the average of the higher-level group. In comparisons stratified by cell sample size, shrinkage of the estimates towards the group mean was marked below 5 jobs/cell, moderate from 5 to 9 jobs/cell, and negligible at ≥10 jobs/cell. The modelled probability of three-digit cells were slightly smaller than their descriptive estimates. No systematic trend in between-study differences in exposure emerged. Overall, the modelling framework for FWI appears to be a suitable approach to refine CANJEM estimates. For probability, the models could be improved by methods better adapted to the large number of cells with no exposure.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207