An analysis on control banding-based methods used for occupational risk assessment of nanomaterials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite all benefits of nanomaterials, their unique characteristics made them an emerging hazard in workplaces, which need to be assessed for their potential risks. So, the aim of this study was to review all the studies conducted on the risk assessment of activities involving nanomaterials with CB-based methods.This study is based on a literature review on databases including Web of science, Scopus, PubMed, and SID. After reviewing and screening studies according to PRISMA, the collected data were meta-analyzed by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. Also, Newcastle-Ottawa checklist was used for quality assessment of the studies. To determine similarity of methods, Cohen's Kappa was used. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine the role of each factor in the risk assessment by using the Crystal Ball tool.There are eight validated methods for risk assessment. Also, some authors used a self-deigned tool based on CB approach. The results of meta-analysis showed that the odds ratio for the risk of activities involved with nanomaterials was 0.654 (high risk). Results of simulation for Nanotool showed that the mean risk level of activities involved with nanomaterials, with a certainty of 95.07%, is moderate (RL3). Moreover, sensitivity analysis showed that the risk was depended on "Hazard band" in all methods except ISO method.The obtained results can be useful in improving existing methods and suggesting new methods. Also, there is a need to design and propose specific methods for risk assessment of incidental and natural nanomaterials.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it