Immunotoxicity, Immunosuppression, and Hypersensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the “Explanatory Dictionary of Key Terms in Toxicology” is to give full explanations of the meaning and usage of toxicological terms chosen for their importance and complexity with regard to the merging of chemistry into toxicology. This requires a full description of the underlying concepts, going beyond a normal dictionary definition. Often linguistic barriers lead to problems in obtaining a common understanding of terminology at an international level and between disciplines. The explanatory comments should help to break down such barriers. This dictionary is a follow-up and continuation of part I published in 2007. It consists of a collection of terms chosen from the IUPAC “Glossary of Terms Used in Toxicology”. These terms are organized under 19 main headings. The authors hope that this explanatory dictionary will be helpful to chemists, pharmacologists, toxicologists, risk assessors, regulators, medical practitioners, regulatory authorities, and everyone with an interest in the application of chemistry to solving toxicological problems. It should be of particular value to those involved in risk assessment and management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.015 |
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".