Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing big data to guide decision-making for environmental health outcomes can provide the next level of health outcome improvements on a population basis. Historical shifts in overall health and longevity came with environmental health interventions such as safe food and water supplies, the treatment of waste and the establishment of standards that have reduced acute illnesses in the population. Big data analysis approaches have the potential to have a similar impact on quality and length of life by analyzing the factors leading to chronic illness in the population, and improving outcomes. Through the use of big data and machine learning, we can learn more about the environmental factors affecting population health. This article presents an opportunity to utilize pre-existing data to explore a novel way of assessing the impact of known health hazards. This is demonstrated by using drinking water test results as a case example. We demonstrate how big data analytics can be used in such a scenario to identify environmental public health risk. This approach is beginning to be used to collect new and better organized data with the intent of improving population health outcomes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.016 |
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".