MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

More on Toxicants

2012· article· en· W819519983 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueASHA Leader · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)BusinessEnvironmental healthAgent OrangeSmokeWaste managementPolitical scienceEngineeringMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderInbox1 Jan 2012More on Toxicants William J. Blackley, and Sandie Barrie-Blackley William J. Blackley Google Scholar More articles by this author and Sandie Barrie-Blackley Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.IN4.17012012.38 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Thank you for publishing Ms. Hepp’s article, “Protecting Children from Toxicants” (Nov. 22, 2011). Ms. Hepp clearly outlined the risks and made good suggestions for reducing them. Many of the toxins Ms. Hepp listed can be traced to one source: air pollution from biomass incineration. Biomass burning emits many of the same toxins as tobacco smoke, but it is often colorless and odorless. The absence of smoke is no guarantee of safety. Burning municipal waste and wood for energy, wrongly touted as “green” power, is increasing across the United States and is creating an entirely new source of dioxins and nanoparticles with multiple health risks including cancer, asthma, and neurological problems in children. Do you think the government will protect you through regulations? The U.S. government allowed lead in gasoline and paint, formaldehyde, asbestos, benzene, dry cleaning fluid, dioxins in Agent Orange, DDT and more. Its damage to humans is well documented. The American Academy of Family Practice, representing 94,700 physicians, last year issued a letter of concern about biomass burning because of the increased health risks to humans. For the health of your children, demand that your legislators incentivize truly clean energy sources such as solar, wind, water, and hydrogen fuel cells and stop the promotion of dangerous biomass burning. Meanwhile, if you see a smokestack burning wood (biomass), coal (fossilized biomass), or municipal waste (biomass), keep children far away from it if you can. William J. Blackley Sandie Barrie-Blackley Elkin, North Carolina Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 17Issue 1January 2012 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jan 1, 2012 Metrics Current downloads: 64 Topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.018

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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