MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190447412 · doi:10.1177/10482911211037007

Trading One Risk for Another: Consequences of the Unauthenticated Treatment and Prevention of Silicosis in Ontario Miners in the McIntyre Powder Aluminum Inhalation Program

2021· article· en· W3190447412 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janice Martell, Tee L. Guidotti

Bibliographic record

VenueNEW SOLUTIONS A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Sudbury
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicosisFactory (object-oriented programming)Environmental healthMedicineDust controlWork (physics)Lung diseaseEngineeringWaste managementPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1943 to 1979, miners and factory workers in more than two hundred work sites globally were subjected to mandatory medical treatments by their employers as an unproven, and ultimately ineffective, treatment to prevent the lung disease silicosis. The treatments involved inhaling finely ground aluminum dust known as McIntyre Powder, blown into miners' change rooms each shift using compressed air systems. Tens of thousands of industrial laborers were exposed to McIntyre Powder, yet their story is scarcely known, and the possible health impacts of their aluminum treatments were rarely studied. This paper integrates the history of the aluminum prophylaxis program and its control by the northern Ontario mining industry with the lived experience of one of the affected miners, whose daughter created a voluntary registry which documents health issues in exposed miners, and stimulated research that found a link to her father's Parkinson disease.

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)0.005
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNEW SOLUTIONS A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health PolicySame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207