A two‐source model for electron beams: Calculation of relative output factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-source model for the calculation of relative output factors (ROF) for clinical applications of electron beams has been developed. The model consists of (1) an effective extended source above the final field-defining aperture (cutout) plane and (2) a source due to scattering from the aperture. Calculations are based on Fermi-Eyges theory and a pencil beam algorithm with parameters determined independently for each major scattering component. The model predicts a modified inverse square law for determining the dose rate for the electron beams. It also generalizes the "square-root method" and "one-dimensional method" that are often used clinically for ROF calculations. A computer program based on the model has been developed to calculate ROF for irregular fields. The predictions of ROF values have been compared with measurements on a Varian CLINAC 2100C/D accelerator for different cutout size, energies, applicators, and SSDs for square fields, rectangular fields, circular fields, and irregular fields. The agreement between prediction and measurement of the ROF for these wide range of conditions is generally within 1% for energies from 6 to 20 MeV. This two-source model can be used for clinical applications and it requires a minimal set of measured input data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".