MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965210568 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/13/001

Re-evaluation of the product of (<i>W</i>/<i>e</i>)<sub>air</sub>and the graphite to air stopping-power ratio for<sup>60</sup>Co air kerma standards

2010· article· en· W1965210568 on OpenAlexaff
Rowan M. Thomson, D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicRadiation Shielding Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKermaStopping powerCalorimeter (particle physics)PhysicsGraphiteNuclear physicsAtomic physicsComputational physicsMaterials scienceOpticsDosimetryNuclear medicineQuantum mechanicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments which determine the product of (W/e)air, the average energy deposited per coulomb of charge of one sign released by an electron coming to rest in dry air, and (LDelta/rho)Ca, the Spencer-Attix mean restricted mass collision stopping-power ratio for graphite to air, in a 60Co or 137Cs beam are reanalysed. Correction factors, e.g., to account for gaps about a calorimeter core or perturbations due to a cavity's presence, are calculated using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code system and these generally decrease the value of (W/e)air(LDelta/rho)Ca for each experiment. Stopping-power ratios are calculated for different choices of density correction and average excitation energy (I-value) for graphite. To calculate an average value (W/e)air(LBIPM/rho)Ca for the BIPM air kerma standard, each experimental result is multiplied by the ratio (LBIPM/rho)Ca/(LDelta/Rho)Ca. While individual values of (LDelta/rho)Ca are sensitive to the I-values and density corrections assumed, this ratio varies by less than 0.1% for different choices. Hence, the product (W/e)air(LBIPM/rho)Ca is relatively insensitive to these choices. The weighted mean of the updated data is (W/e)air(LBIPM/rho)Ca=33.68 J C(-1)+/-0.2%, suggesting that the accepted value of 33.97 J C(-1)+/-0.1% is 0.8% too high. This has implications for primary 60Co air kerma standards worldwide and potentially for the choice of graphite I-value and density correction for the calculation of the graphite stopping power, as well as the value of (W/e)air.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Shielding Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207