MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088167466 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.41.1.03

Increases in exposure calls related to selected cleaners and disinfectants at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: data from Canadian poison centres

2020· article· en· W3088167466 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Abdool S. Yasseen, Deborah Jones Weiss, Sandy Remer, Nina A. Dobbin, Morgan MacNeill, Bojana Bogeljic, Dennis Leong, Victoria Wan, Laurie Mosher, G. Bélair, Margaret Thompson, Brooke Button, James Hardy, Shahid Perwaiz, Alysyn Smith, Richard Wootton

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesBC Centre for Disease ControlIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Environmental healthMedicineVirologyOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the use or misuse of cleaning products during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compiled data from January to June in 2019 and 2020 from Canadian poison centres, and report on calls regarding selected cleaning products and present year-overyear percentage change. There were 3408 (42%) calls related to bleaches; 2015 (25%) to hand sanitizers; 1667 (21%) to disinfectants; 949 (12%) to chlorine gas; and 148 (2%) to chloramine gas. An increase in calls occurred in conjunction with the onset of COVID-19, with the largest increase occurring in March. Timely access to Canadian poison centre data facilitated early communication of safety messaging for dissemination to the public.

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)0.006
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in CanadaSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207