MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017560717

Bisphenol A : how media and special interest groups influenced the ban on BPA / by Lawrencia Ntiri.

2017· other· en· W7017560717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionArticular cartilage damageTSG101DiafiltrationHyporeflexiaTubulopathy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there has been great dispute about the effects of bisphenol A (herein referred to
\nas BPA) leaching into baby bottles. This led to Canada being the first country to ban
\nBPA in baby bottles in April of 2008 (CBC, 2008). This decision elicited criticism from
\nthe USA Food and Drug and Administration (FDA) but according to Health Ministry
\nTony Clement, ?it is better to be safe than sorry? (CBC, 2008). It is this uncertainty of
\nthe effects due to the exposure of BPA that has fueled an interest for the topic of this
\npaper. The purpose of this paper is to do a policy analysis in regards to BPA and the
\neffects of industry sponsored research, specialty groups and the role of the media
\n(newsprint). The next section of this paper looks at the methodology employed to
\nidentify sources, followed by a detailed look at how policy analysis is conducted in
\nCanada and the key research findings on BPA from special interest groups coupled with
\nthe role that the media played in the decision to ban BPA in Canada. The last section
\ndescribes the relevance and implications of the role played by these sources in public
\nhealth and the future significance that these findings will have on public health practice,
\npolicy and research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)French-language works237,207