MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400075829 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxae035.281

229 Exposure and risk assessment for elongate mineral particles

2024· article· en· W4400075829 on OpenAlexaff
Andrey Korchevskiy, Lucy Darnton, Bruce W. Case, James Rasmuson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk assessmentEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Asbestos and other fibrous minerals remain significant occupational and environmental concerns worldwide. Despite being effectively banned from commercial utilization in the Western world, asbestos is still produced and utilized in many countries. Exposure to so called “legacy” asbestos, still present in buildings and other objects and products, also causes concerns. This Professional Development Course (PDC) will present a framework for exposure assessment and risk characterization based on the most advanced methods and recently published models. We will show the applications of quantitative risk assessment for different situations that occupational and environmental health professionals worldwide may encounter. Examples will include potential exposure to erionite fibers during forestry activities; exposure to legacy asbestos in buildings with partially disturbed asbestos-containing materials; exposure of populations near current or former mines or other point sources such as former asbestos cement plants and shipyards; exposure during recreational activities at sites containing naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), and others. Participants will review the most recent scientific approaches to the pathogenesis and pathology of asbestos-associated diseases, important for hazard identification and a proper understanding of the health effects of asbestos. The most innovative approaches to asbestos exposure assessment will be characterized, including real time monitoring instruments, artificial intelligence tools, and exposure reconstruction from the lung burden levels. The PDC will be presented by the leading scientists in the area of asbestos risk assessment, known for their numerous peer-reviewed publications. As an added value, participants will be provided with copies of some of the most recent papers authored by the presenters, and the asbestos “risk calculator” for practical utilization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicHealthcare and Environmental Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207