Printed in Great Britain LEADING ARTICLE Stratospheric Ozone and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Stratospheric ozone is being depleted and ambient ultraviolet (UV) irradlance is probably increasing. While remedial steps have been taken through the Montreal protocols, at best It will take some 90 years for stratospheric ozone concentrations to return to the levels existing in the 1970s. Methods. The evidence that these changes may have harmful effects on health has been reviewed. Results. The direct harmful effects are skin cancer, ocular damage and, possibly, immune suppression with an Increase in infectious disease. Indirect, harmful effects resulting from climate change, changes in atmospheric chemistry, and changes in food supply may also occur. Beneficial effects are also possible but have largely escaped attention. Quantification of these effects is either uncertain or impossible at present and the outcomes for health in 50 years time can only be guessed at. Conclusions. To understand better the health consequence of stratospheric ozone depletion, we need to know the quantitative relationship between ambient UV radiation and skin cancer, whether or not UV radiation really causes cataract and other ocular effects and what the quantitative relationships are, whether effects of UV radiation on immune function produce detectable health consequences, whether there are important beneficial effects of increasing UV radiation and, ultimately, what the balance of all these effects might be on health on a global scale. Effects of increasing ambient ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the incidence and severity of infection (Table 1) may turn out to be the most important direct harmful effects on health of stratospheric ozone depletion.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".