Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians are exposed to background contamination through air, water, soil, food and consumer products. This background exposure is quantified, for a given contaminant, by Estimated Daily Intakes (EDIs). EDIs estimate the typical concurrent background exposure from all known or suspected sources (ambient and indoor air, drinking water, soil, food, breast milk, consumer products) via all known or suspected routes (inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact) for the average Canadian. The total EDI of a chemical - the summation of all these concurrent EDIs - is determined through a multimedia exposure assessment in which a lot of information are required. In risk assessments, RTDI (Residual tolerable daily intake) is considered and corresponds to the dose of a chemical above background to which a person could be exposed without expected adverse effects (i.e., RTDI = TDI - EDI, where TDI is the tolerable daily intake). Additionally, in the derivation of the human health quality guidelines, 20% of the RTDI is allotted to each of the five primary media to which people are potentially exposed (i.e., air, water, soil, food and consumer products). As can be seen, EDIs are an important piece of the human health risk assessment process. For compounds with available EDIs and for compounds still without, there is a need: To assess or re-assess EDIs on a regular basis (data update for example) To evolve towards more accurate EDIs (moving from deterministic to probabilistic EDIs for example) To be transparent in the way EDIs are estimated in order to be easily revisited and updated on a regular basis (every five years for example) This talk will briefly explain the various key aspects of the EDI protocol developed by the HC-CSD in order to assess new Canadian EDIs for several chemicals, notably: Chemicals priorization Data and / or studies selection process Canadian population parameters selection Mediums and routes of exposure Fit of statistical distributions Simulations results Emphasis will be devoted to the current data limitations and their consequences. The urgent need of cooperation between all the federal / provincial / local data generators in order to produce more realistic EDIs will also be highlighted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".