Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the second half of the 20th century, the incidence of atopic disease has been on the rise. Allergies and rhinitis have become so common that some have called it an epidemic (Strachan, 1989). Initial research into the reasons for the rapid increase was done by David P Strachan, and he proposed the “hygiene hypothesis,” a theory claiming that early childhood infections can protect us against atopic diseases later in life (Strachan, 1989). Subsequent research found an interaction between T-helper 1 and T-helper 2 cells that, for many years, was considered to be the mechanism by which the hygiene hypothesis functioned (Romagnani, 1992). Eventually, it was discovered that this interaction did not work exactly as previously thought, and Graham A. Rook introduced a new theory to match the more recent research. Rook proposed the “old friends” hypothesis, which suggested that certain microbes, which evolved alongside humans, were responsible for protecting us against atopic disease (Rook et al., 2004). According to Rook, modern lifestyles have eliminated many of those microbes from our normal flora, and that explains the recent rise in atopic disease (Rook et al., 2004). The “old friends” hypothesis is now the prevalent atopic disease theory in epidemiology, and has helped improve both public and scientific understanding of the relationship between infection, hygiene, and atopy (Stiesma, et al., 2015).
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".