MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ecological Risk Assessment of the Uses of the Organophosphorus Insecticide Chlorpyrifos, in the United States

2014· review· en· W87927236 on OpenAlex
John P. Giesy, Keith R. Solomon, G. Christopher Cutler, Jeffrey M. Giddings, Don Mackay, Dwayne R. J. Moore, John Purdy, W. M. Williams

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityTrent UniversityUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNanjing UniversityState Administration of Foreign Experts AffairsState Key Laboratory in Marine PollutionChinese Academy of SciencesUniversity of SaskatchewanCity University of Hong KongCalifornia Department of Pesticide Regulation
KeywordsChlorpyrifosEnvironmental scienceToxicologyFertigationContaminationEthylene DibromidePesticideBiologyEcologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As explained in the foreword, this volume of Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology is devoted to an assessment of the ecological risks posed by chlorpyrifos (O,O-diethyl O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2- pyridinyl) phosphorothioate; CAS No. 2921-88-2; CPY) as used in the United States (U.S.). CPY is a widely used organophosphorus insecticide that is available in a granular formulation for treatment in soil, or several flowable formulations that can be applied to foliage, soil, or dormant trees. CPY can be applied by use of aerial spraying, chemigation, ground boom or air-blast sprayers, tractor-drawn spreaders, or hand-held equipment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · 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