Environmental Health Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modern consumer is exposed to a wide variety of plastic and rubber products in his day to day life: at home, work, school, shopping, recreation and play, and transport. A large variety of toxic sequellae have resulted from untoward exposures by many different routes: oral, dermal, inhalation, and parenteral. Toxic change may result from the plastic itself, migration of unbound components and additives, chemical decomposition or toxic pyrolysis products. The type of damage may involve acute poisoning, chronic organ damage, reproductive disorders, and carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic episodes. Typical examples for all routes are cited along with the activities of Canadian regulatory agencies to reduce both the incidence and severity of plastic-induced disease. After the final manufacturing and processing steps, a considerable portion of the plastic industries' products are sold as consumer or household items. Other plastic articles may appear in public places (schools, theaters, stores, transport vehicles), or they could be widely dispersed throughout the work force and thus come into frequent contact with the population. Thus, man in his modern existence is inextricably linked and exposed to the many products of the polymer and rubber industries. One can cite toys, clothing, furniture, medical devices, food containers, paints, sporting equipment, recreational articles, pens, pencils, construction materials such as water pipes, insulation, electrical wiring; the list is endless, but all may incorporate modern plastics. The routes of exposure to polymers include oral ingestion, dermal adsorption, inhalation, and ccntact with skin and eye. We may have exposure to heavy metals, plasticizers, stabilizers, fillers, dyes, residual monomers, antioxidants, fire retardants, and in cases of fire, a large number of thermal decomposition products. Hazards include acute poisoning and chronic toxicity, sensitization and corrosive damage to
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.266 | 0.110 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".