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 OpenAlexafffund
John P. Giesy, Keith R. Solomon, G. Christopher Cutler, Jeffrey M. Giddings, Don Mackay, Dwayne R. J. Moore, John Purdy, W. M. Williams

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. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews of Environmental Contamination and ToxicologySame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207