MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401397758 · doi:10.1080/10807039.2024.2381789

Soil quality guidelines for dioxins and furans in Canada: A review and international comparison

2024· review· en· W4401397758 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay Woof, Tara Siemens Kennedy, Lindsay Du Gas, Courtney Bogstie, Nina Ching Y. Wang, Brendan Schiewe

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment An International Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman healthEnvironmental sciencePolychlorinated dibenzodioxinsContaminationEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental healthPolychlorinated dibenzofuransEnvironmental qualityEnvironmental chemistryChemistryBiologyMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) (collectively PCDD/Fs) are toxic and persistent contaminants produced as unintentional by-products of anthropogenic activities. Human exposure to PCDD/Fs occurs primarily through consumption of contaminated food, though point-source soil contamination can also meaningfully contribute to exposure. Environmental soil quality guidelines (ESQGs) for PCDD/Fs have been developed worldwide. In Canada, the 2002 federal ESQG of 4 ng/kg has been adopted by most provinces and is based on limited background soil data. In the remaining provinces, ESQGs derived to be protective of human health range from 15 ng/kg to 95 ng/kg. Internationally, 70% of human health protective ESQGs adopted since 2010 range from 20 ng/kg to 120 ng/kg. Considering the consistency in human health protective ESQGs observed worldwide, the ongoing inputs of PCDD/Fs to the environment and the evolving scientific understanding of PCDD/F toxicity over the last two decades, the federal ESQG appears outdated. As ESQGs are of specific importance in the management of contaminated sites, they must remain protective of human health without being unreasonably cautious. Federal agency review and update of the ESQG for PCDD/Fs appears warranted and should consider the establishment of a risk-based guideline protective of human health.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment An International JournalSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207