The BC Radon Data Repository (BCRDR) and BC Radon Map: Integrating disparate data sources for improved public health communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: The potential for exposure to indoor radon varies dramatically across British Columbia (BC) due to varied geology. Individuals may struggle to understand their exposure risk and agencies may struggle to understand the value of population-level programs and policies to mitigate risk. INTERVENTION: The BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) established the BC Radon Data Repository (BCRDR) to facilitate radon research, public awareness, and action in the province. The BCRDR aggregates indoor radon measurements collected by government agencies, industry professionals and organizations, and research and advocacy groups. Participation was formalized with a data sharing agreement, which outlines how the BCCDC anonymizes and manages the shared data integrated into the BCRDR. OUTCOMES: The BCRDR currently holds 38,733 measurements from 18 data contributors. The repository continues to grow with new measurements from existing contributors and the addition of new contributors. A prominent use of the BCRDR was to create the online, interactive BC Radon Map, which includes regional concentration summaries, risk interpretation messaging, and health promotion information. Anonymized BCRDR data are also available for external release upon request. IMPLICATIONS: The BCCDC leverages existing radon measurement programs to create a large and integrated database with wide geographic coverage. The development and application of the BCRDR informs public health research and action beyond the BCCDC, and the repository can serve as a model for other regional or national initiatives.
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 | 0.064 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.017 |
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".