MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096679170

Fraser Forum Particulates, Energy Consumption, & Affluence

2014· article· en· W7096679170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMains electricityCoalElectricityEnergy supplyPopulationAir quality indexPower (physics)Quality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

were 18 percent lower in 1998 than they were in 1940. True or False? 2. In the US, the coal burned by all industry and electricity-generating plants generates less PM10 emissions than residential wood-burning fireplaces. True or False? by Ross McKitrick Many Canadians are concerned about the quality of the air they breathe, both indoors and out. Certainly everyone should celebrate the dramatic improvements in air quality that have happened since the 1970s. However, as important as clean air is, recent major power failures in North America provide striking reminders of just how valuable is our supply of stable, uninterrupted electricity. Unfortunately, the reliability of our electricity supply, at least in Ontario, seems uncertain at best: the grid already operates at full capacity, the population is growing, and the province is actively courting new businesses that are major power users, such as auto plants. On the supply side, a major nuclear plant remains mothballed, natural gas supplies are dwindling, and suitable sites for hydro dams have all been used up. Fortunately we still have coal to rely on … or do we? Ontario’s new Liberal

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1810.026

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→