MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6948625071 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10807704

PFAS raise their ugly head in malaria control: Diverging views on risk substitution

2024· article· en· W6948625071 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsCégep de Rivière-du-Loup
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalariaSanitationContext (archaeology)Public healthAction (physics)Sustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A controversy has arisen over whether or not the replacement of PFAS compounds as a binder between insecticides and nets by other compounds has affected the nets' efficacy in preventing malaria transmission. Robert Bos places this matter in a broader and historical context and concludes that now is the time to revisit earlier concepts and provide sustainable malaria prevention and control with a broader foundation aiming for truly resilient results. The need to promote institutional arrangements conducive to intersectoral action is as great in WHO Member States as it is within the structure of the World Health Organization itself. Robert Bos is former Executive Secretary, WHO/FAO/UNEP/UN-Habitat Panel of Experts on Environmental Management for Vector Control, WHO, Geneva (1983-1995) former Scientist, Division of Environmental Health, later Department of Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments, later Department of Public Health and Environment, WHO, Geneva (1995-2009) and former Coordinator, Water, Sanitation and Health, WHO, Geneva (2009-2013).

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.050
Scholarly communication0.0140.025
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0220.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→