MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851987558 · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(15)00113-1

The merits and limits of pooling data from nuclear power worker studies

2015· letter· en· W1851987558 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Blettner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Haematology · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePoolingNuclear powerNuclear engineeringNuclear physicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear power plant workers are exposed to various sources of occupational radiation and are a suitable population to investigate the effects of low and protracted exposure. Thus, since the 1970s, analyses have been done of data from a single power plant from one country, several plants from one country, and several plants from several countries. However, comparisons between results are hampered by different designs and different inclusion criteria. Risk estimates very between studies and larger studies or pooled analyses are needed to increase precision.

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)0.735
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.878
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7350.878
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0280.037
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0200.018
Open science0.0120.022
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet HaematologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207