MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399760146 · doi:10.1029/2024gh001045

One in Four US Households Likely Exceed New Soil Lead Guidance Levels

2024· article· en· W4399760146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriel Filippelli, Matthew Dietrich, John T. Shukle, Leah Wood, Andrew J. Margenot, Sara Perl Egendorf, Howard W. Mielke

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoHealth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSoil waterLead (geology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Environmental protectionLead exposureNatural resource economicsGeographyEngineeringEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lead exposure has blighted communities across the United States (and the globe), with much of the burden resting on lower income communities, and communities of color. On 17 January 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) lowered the recommended screening level of lead in residential soils from 400 to 200 parts per million. Our analysis of tens of thousands of citizen-science collected soil samples from cities and communities around the US indicates that nearly one quarter of households may contain soil lead that exceed the new screening level. Extrapolating across the nation, that equates to nearly 30 million households needing to mitigate potential soil lead hazards, at a potential total cost of 290 billion to $1.2 trillion. We do not think this type of mitigation is feasible at the massive scale required and we have instead focused on a more immediate, far cheaper strategy: capping current soils with clean soils and/or mulch. At a fraction of the cost and labor of disruptive conventional soil mitigation, it yields immediate and potentially life-changing benefits for those living in these environments.

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)0.003
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoHealthSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207