MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1724228985

Ionizing radiation exposure--more good than harm? The preponderance of evidence does not support abandoning current standards and regulations.

2006· article· en· W1724228985 on OpenAlexaff
André Bussières, Carlo Ammendolia, Cindy Peterson, John A.M. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmIonizing radiationCurrent (fluid)Computer scienceData scienceRisk analysis (engineering)MedicinePsychologyEngineeringPhysicsSocial psychologyElectrical engineeringIrradiation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article responds to a commentary by P.A. Oakley and colleagues on "phantom risks" associated with diagnostic ionizing radiation. It examines the evidence in support of revising radiography standards and regulations in chiropractic. The article claims that Oakley and his colleagues provide a biased and unscientific evaluation of the evidence.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207