ArticleEnvironmental sociology2017
Measuring Vapor Intrusion: From Source Science Politics to a Transdisciplinary Approach.
Article in Environmental sociology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social ecological system framework as a decision-making tool for risk mitigation: A superfund site case study.The Science of the total environment · 2024Article
- Atmosphere of Wet Basements as a Novel Route for Potential Residential Exposure to 1,4-Dioxane Vapor.Current opinion in environmental science & health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Investigation of indoor air quality has been on the upswing in recent years. In this article, we focus on how the transport of subsurface vapors into indoor air spaces, a process known as "vapor intrusion," (VI) is defined and addressed. For environmental engineers and physical scientists who specialize in this emerging indoor environmental exposure science, VI is notoriously difficult to characterize, leading the regulatory community to seek improved science-based understandings of VI pathways and exposures. Yet despite the recent growth in VI science and competition between environmental consulting companies, VI studies have largely overlooked the social and political field in which VI problems emerge and are experienced by those at risk. To balance and inform current VI studies, this article explores VI science and policy and develops a critique of what we call "source science politics." Drawing inspiration from the creative synthesis of social and environmental science/engineering perspectives, the article offers a transdisciplinary approach to VI that highlights collaboration with social scientists and impacted communities and cultivates epistemic empathy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.