Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of us have been fully absorbed in COVID-related activities over the past 2 years, and now as some of these activities are being lessened, many eyes will be turned to the pandemic response and toward the public health system going forward.Work and discussions are already taking place in many provinces across Canada as well as at the federal level.I am quite sure many of us have experienced challenges during this pandemic response and have had a difficult time keeping up with activities that did not involve COVID-19.This journal is an ideal forum to share lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic response as well as to turn an eye toward the future of environmental public health.There were many areas where environmental public health professionals were extended and where they previously may not have participated.Further, there were areas ignored that now must be revisited.The main function of the Environmental Health Review is to increase the knowledge of and to disseminate information to environmental public health professionals across Canada.This role has never been more important.
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 | 0.011 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.029 |
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".