MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211286793 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.201

P-108 Population-level estimates of occupational exposure to chlorothalonil, 2,4-D, and glyphosate in Canada’s agricultural industry (CAREX Canada)

2021· article· en· W3211286793 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ela Rydz, Cheryl Peters, Kristian Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlorothalonilPesticideAgricultureCensusPopulationGlyphosateAgricultural scienceToxicologyEnvironmental healthGeographyEnvironmental scienceAgronomyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Certain pesticides may lead to adverse health outcomes including cancer; however, little is known about occupational pesticide exposure in Canada. <h3>Objective</h3> The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence and likelihood of occupational exposure to chlorothalonil, 2,4-D, and glyphosate in Canada’s agricultural industry. <h3>Methods</h3> Lower and upper estimates were calculated using the Canadian Census of Population (CoP) and Census of Agriculture (CoA). We estimated the number of workers and proportion of farms applying ‘herbicides’ or ‘fungicides’ by farm type using CoA survey data. These values were multiplied to yield the number of workers at risk of exposure. Likelihood of exposure (exposed, probably exposed, possibly exposed) was qualitatively assigned using information on crop type, primary expected tasks, crop production practices, and residue transfer data. Agricultural workers who are at risk of exposure but were not captured by the CoA were identified using the CoP. <h3>Results</h3> An estimated 37,700 to 55,800 workers (11–13% of agricultural workers) were exposed to glyphosate in in Canada while 30,800 to 43,600 workers (9–11%) and 9,000 to 14,100 (3%) were exposed to 2,4-D and chlorothalonil, respectively. Approximately 70–75% of at-risk workers were probably or possibly exposed to any of the pesticides. Glyphosate exposure was most common among workers in oilseed (29%) and dry pea/bean farms (28%), along with those providing support activities for farms (31%). 2,4-D exposure was most common in corn (28%), other grain (28%), and soybean farms (27%), while chlorothalonil exposure was more likely among greenhouse, nursery and floriculture workers (42%) and those working on farms (28%, for occupations not captured by the CEAG). Regional variations reflected differences in farm types by province. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This study estimated the prevalence of occupational pesticide exposure in Canada, and findings can support priority setting for future research and data collection.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoster presentationsSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207