MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Un análisis crítico del entorno institucional de la empresa

2002· article· en· W37970096 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Benito Arruñada

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista del Instituto de Estudios Económicos · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCooperative Studies and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 EnergyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A suite of analytical techniques was used to obtain a comprehensive picture of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in selected Canadian food packaging used for fast foods (<i>n</i> = 42). Particle-induced gamma ray emission spectroscopy revealed that 55% of the samples contained <3580, 19% contained 3580-10 800, and 26% > 10 800 μg F/m<sup>2</sup>. The highest total F (1 010 000-1 300 000 μg F/m<sup>2</sup>) was measured in molded "compostable" bowls. Targeted analysis of 8 samples with high total F revealed 4-15 individual PFAS in each sample, with 6:2 fluorotelomer methacrylate (FTMAc) and 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (FTOH) typically dominating. Up to 34% of the total fluorine was released from samples after hydrolysis, indicating the presence of unknown precursors. Nontargeted analysis detected 22 PFAS from 6 different groups, including degradation products of FTOH. Results indicate the use of side-chain fluorinated polymers and suggest that these products can release short-chain compounds that ultimately can be transformed to compounds of toxicological concern. Analysis after 2 years of storage showed overall decreases in PFAS consistent with the loss of volatile compounds such as 6:2 FTMAc and FTOH. The use of PFAS in food packaging such as "compostable" bowls represents a regrettable substitution of single-use plastic food packaging.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista del Instituto de Estudios EconómicosSame topicCooperative Studies and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207