Bibliographic record
Abstract
hearing: “Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment” 2. For information to still innocent parties: by all EMF related evidences and testimonies so far submitted by CORE Health Canada does not have any ELF –EMF exposure guidelines. Corporacy dictates our government what is good for corporation never mind how bad for Canadian people! C1-36 3. May I cite here out of the Dr. Johansson paper: In Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognized functional impairment (i.e., it is not regarded as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000–290,000 Swedish men and women report a variety of symtoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. //snip…Karow//// Swedish municipalities, of course, have to follow the UN 22 Standard Rules on the equalization of opportunities for people with disabilities (“Standardregler för att tillförsäkra människor med funktionsnedsättning delaktighet och jämlikhet”; about the UN 22 Standard Rules, see website:
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 | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.362 | 0.406 |
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".