MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391509178 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1s.2162

STUDY OF ACUTE ARSENICTOXICITY ON A GLOBAL SCENARIO

2023· article· en· W4391509178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tanaya Bhattacharya, Keshab Ghosh, Aritri Laha, Pritha Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicArsenic contamination and mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most significant health threats worldwide is arsenic (As) poisoning in groundwater. In numerous areas of the globe, groundwater is contaminated by arsenic due to natural or man-made sources, endangering both human health and the ecosystem. When groundwater is used as drinking water, it can become contaminated with arsenic and enter the body. Millions of people in numerous countries rely heavily on As-rich groundwater for drinking needs. Vomiting, stomach discomfort, and diarrhea are among the acute arsenic poisoning symptoms that present right away. Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and severe diarrhea have all been linked to acute intake of arsenic. This quantity of arsenic for an extended period of time may result in problems with the heart, lungs, and digestive system. The blood, skin, and nervous system will all be affected. Additionally, the hepatic and renal systems will be impacted. With quantities over the suggested maximum safe limit of10 ppb, groundwater contamination with arsenic is expected to affect roughly 108 countries. The worst arsenic disaster in the world is the groundwater contamination in Bangladesh and India. There is an excessive amount of arsenic in the groundwater in the Indian states of West Bengal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicArsenic contamination and mitigationFrench-language works237,207