Bibliographic record
Abstract
A research study has investigated the correlation of radon test data for three testing periods obtained in a set of 50 homes. The homes were part of the housing stock in a long-established subdivision in Winnipeg, Manitoba, for which it was initially hypothesized that a high percentage of homes had radon levels above the Canadian guideline. Co-linear tests, all commencing on the same date, were conducted over periods of 5 d, 30 d, and 91 d under closed building conditions during the 2009-10 heating season using electret ion radon detectors, supplemented in some instances by measurements with a continuous radon monitor. Radon levels in 33 of the 50 homes exceeded the Canadian radon guideline of 200 Bq m in 91-d tests. False-positive and false-negative analyses of the 5-d tests and 30-d tests were conducted relative to the 91-d tests in the respective homes. False positive/false negative analyses indicated that the short-term and the medium-term testing results reflected the results of the 91-d tests over 85% of the time. Precision testing of the radon data was carried out in accordance with quality assurance protocols. Correlation of a building construction survey with radon data indicated that earth-floor crawl spaces were common contributors to elevated radon levels. Testing was also done to measure the efficacy of a commercial brand of floor drain seal installed to lower radon levels, which resulted in an average radon reduction of 47% in homes without earth-floor crawl spaces.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".