A Canadian Perspective on Endocrine Disrupting Substances in the Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although reproduction and development are major endpoints for environmental and human health assessments in many federal government programs, growing concern about risks posed by endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) has highlighted the need to detect subtle effects mediated through endocrine systems. Internationally, screening and testing programs in the United States, Japan and Europe, and the activities of international agencies such as the OECD, will have a profound influence on how Canada will address this issue in the future. It is critical that Canada be proactive, identify knowledge gaps from a Canadian perspective, and anticipate international developments that may influence Canadian policy. The complexity and urgency of the EDS question spurred the Five Natural Resource Departments Endocrine Disrupting Substances (5-NR EDS) Working Group to hold a multi-departmental, multi-stakeholder, workshop to address key issues in assessing risks of EDS to Canadians and the Canadian environment. The following is a summary of the major conclusions, research priorities and recommendations from the workshop held at the Grandview Inn, in Huntsville, Ontario, February 13–17, 2000.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".