Aircraft crew radiation workplaces: Comparison of measured and calculated ambient dose equivalent rate data using the EURADOS in-flight radiation data base
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May 2000, the chairman of the European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS) invited a number of experts with experience of cosmic radiation dosimetry to form a working group (WG 5) on aircraft crew dosimetry. Three observers from the Article 31 Group of Experts as well as one observer from the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) were also appointed. The European Commission funded the meetings. Full meetings were organised in January 2001 and in November 2001. An editorial group, who are the authors of this publication, started late in 2002 to finalise a draft report, which was submitted to the Article 31 Group of Experts in June 2003. The methods and data reported are the product of the work of 26 research institutes from the EU, USA and Canada. Some of the work was supported by contracts with the European Commission, Directorate General XII, Science, Research and Development. A first overview of the EC report was published late in 2004. In this publication we focus on a comparison of measured and calculated ambient dose rate data using the EURADOS In-Flight Data Base. The evaluation of results obtained by different methods and groups, and comparison of measurement results and the results of calculations were performed in terms of the operational quantity ambient dose equivalent, H*(10). Aspects of measurement uncertainty are reported also. The paper discusses the estimation of annual doses for given flight hours and gives an outline of further research needed in the field of aircraft crew dosimetry, such as the influence of solar particle events.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".