MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134659743 · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105191

Response from the authors of the article “Critical review of the role of personal protective Equipment (PPE) in the prevention of risks related to agricultural pesticide use” to the letter to the editor from the European crop protection association (ECPA) Occupational and bystander exposure expert group (OBEEG)

2021· article· en· W3134659743 on OpenAlex
Alain Garrigou, C. Laurent, Isabelle Baldi, Aurélie Berthet, Claudio Colosio, Véronique Daubas-Letourneux, Louis Galey, Fabienne Goutille, José Marçal Jackson Filho, Nathalie Jas, Jean-Noël Jouzel, Nathalie Judon, Pierre Lebailly

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSafety Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureOccupational safety and healthRelevance (law)Personal protective equipmentEnvironmental healthPesticidePoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionBusinessEngineeringMedicinePolitical scienceLawGeographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2020, Safety Science published the article “Critical review of the role of PPE in the prevention of risks related to agricultural pesticide use” by an international group of researchers working for public research organisations. An expert group from an association representing the interests of the agricultural pesticide industry at European level (the European Crop Protection Association -ECPA-) then published a letter challenging the relevance of the discussion and the conclusions of this article. The authors of the review have decided to use their right to reply.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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