MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976758725 · doi:10.1093/rpd/nch428

Evaluation of two personal dosemeters in polyenergetic mono- and multi-directional neutron fields

2005· article· en· W1976758725 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. C. Nunes, R.A. Surette

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedCANDU Owners Group
KeywordsEquivalent doseNeutronNuclear medicinePhysicsNuclear physicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neutron dose-equivalent response of two commercially available electronic personal neutron dosemeters was studied in several laboratory-produced broad-spectrum neutron fields. Fluence-weighted mean energies ranged from 200 keV to 4 MeV; personal dose-equivalent rates ranged from 75 to 10 mSv h(-1); and angles of incidence were multidirectional, 0 degrees, 30 degrees and 60 degrees. Three of these fields have been shown previously to resemble ones found in CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium is a registered trademark of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) power plant workplaces. Both dosemeters were found to perform reasonably well across the range of energy spectra and angles of incidence. One type of dosemeter displayed values of the personal dose equivalent that were, at worst, within a factor of approximately 2 of the reference values and, at best, within a few per cent of the reference values. The other type displayed values of the personal dose equivalent that were consistently within unity and 20% of the reference values. Although the radiological performance of one was found to be more accurate, this device was also found to be the less rugged of the two. Some of the data acquired in this work were compared with results previously published by others. There was consistency between these sets of 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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207