MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404235912 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2024.107570

Indoor radon trends with building code change in two Canadian cities

2024· article· en· W4404235912 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janet Gaskin, Liang Grace Zhou, R. Stainforth, Colin Gutcher, Pawel Mekarski, Roshini Kassie, K. Li, Ngoc Q. Vuong, Jeff Whyte, Michel Gauthier, Debora Quayle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Radioactivity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaNational Research Council Canada
FundersHealth CanadaPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsRadonEnvironmental scienceBuilding codeCode (set theory)MeteorologyGeographyPhysical geographyArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radon studies were conducted in two Canadian cities, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, to evaluate trends in indoor radon before and after the 2010 National Building Code of Canada was adopted into the legally binding provincial building codes in 2011. Participants were recruited in neighbourhoods characterized by newer housing developments. A postcard campaign in each city offered free radon testing to every house in the target areas, and free testing kits were mailed to study participants. Indoor radon measurements and house questionnaires were completed by 225 eligible participants in Halifax and 171 eligible participants in Winnipeg, using alpha-track radon detectors deployed for three months during the heating season in 2021-2022. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between indoor radon and the period of construction, the area in contact with the ground, the number of storeys, the type of heating system, the water source, and the type of ventilation. These analyses were focussed on the detached study houses because the majority of the participants lived in a detached house, and significant associations were identified for the period of construction and the floor where the radon detector was located. An odds ratio of 1.91 (1.04-3.50) for the detached Halifax study houses built after 2011 was associated with having a higher than geometric mean radon concentration (p = 0.033), nearly double the likelihood. There was no evidence of significant change in the indoor radon after 2011 in the detached Winnipeg study houses. A lower likelihood - almost half - for measurement conducted on a main/upper floor compared to in the basement was associated with a radon concentration above the respective geometric mean for each city: an odds ratio of 0.48 (0.27-0.86) for the detached Halifax study houses (p = 0.012), and of 0.45 (0.32-0.64) for the detached Winnipeg study houses (p = 0.022). Radon is the second most important cause of lung cancer, after smoking, and the results of this study support strengthening the radon preventive measures required in new low-rise housing to reduce the associated lung cancer burden in Canada.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental RadioactivitySame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207