SURVEILLANCE OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE TO GOLF TURF PESTICIDES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: In Canada, golf courses are often permitted continued use of pesticides banned for cosmetic purposes, including those classified as “possible” carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). As part of a National Carcinogen Surveillance Project (CAREX Canada), we geographically estimate environmental exposure potential for “possibly” carcinogenic pesticides applied to golf turf in Canadian watersheds. Methods: Pesticide type, application frequency, and course size were obtained from Canadian Golf Superintendents’ Association surveys (2004, 2008). Estimated annual use (kilograms active ingredient) were calculated using product label application rates from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. A Canadian golf course database was compiled in a geographic information system (GIS) from national landuse, business directories and online sources. GoogleEarth was used to verify locations and rank courses by relative surrounding housing density (n): Low 0-2; Low-Medium 2-10; Medium-High 10-20; High >20. A method to develop an average course perimeter polygon for estimating adjacent populations is being developed. Results: Data sources of course locations were frequently inadequate. Locations were corrected to more accurately assess adjacent housing density. We identified three IARC “possible” carcinogens being used: 2,4-D, MCPP and chlorothalonil. Average annual use was calculated for a typical course and multiplied by number of courses in each watershed. For example, an average course applies 158 kg chlorothalonil annually. We identify hotspot watersheds, such as that in Western Canada using up to 19,586 kg (lower Fraser Valley). Percentage of courses with highest surrounding housing density varies by province: 11.8% British Columbia, 8.6% Alberta, and 1.4% Saskatchewan. Exposure surveillance information is disseminated in map format for comparison within and across provinces. Conclusions: We geographically assess golf course pesticide use across Canada at the watershed level to identify areas with greatest potential for environmental exposures. Ongoing research will provide more detailed population estimates that account for residential proximity to golf courses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".