7th International Conference on 3D Radiation Dosimetry (IC3DDose)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IC3DDose 2013, the 7th International Conference on 3D Radiation Dosimetry held in Sydney, Australia from 4–8 November 2012, grew out of the DosGel series, which began as DosGel99, the 1st International Workshop on Radiation Therapy Gel Dosimetry in Lexington, Kentucky. Since 1999 subsequent DoSGel conferences were held in Brisbane, Australia (2001), Ghent, Belgium (2004), Sherbrooke, Canada (2006) and Crete, Greece (2008). In 2010 the conference was held on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina and underwent a name-change to IC3DDose. The aim of the first workshop was to bring together individuals, both researchers and users, with an interest in 3D radiation dosimetry techniques, with a mix of presentations from basic science to clinical applications, which has remained an objective for all of the meetings. One rationale of DosGel99 was stated as supporting the increasing clinical implementation of gel dosimetry, as the technique appeared, at that time, to be leaving the laboratories of gel dosimetry enthusiasts and entering clinical practice. Clearly by labelling the first workshop as the 1st, there was a vision of a continuing series, which has been fulfilled. On the other hand, the expectation of widespread clinical use of gel dosimetry has perhaps not been what was hoped for and anticipated. Nevertheless the rapidly increasing demand for advanced high-precision 3D radiotherapy technology and techniques has continued apace. The need for practical and accurate 3D dosimetry methods for development and quality assurance has only increased. By the 6th meeting, held in South Carolina in 2010, the Conference Scientific Committee recognised the wider developments in 3D systems and methods and decided to widen the scope, whilst keeping the same span from basic science to applications. This was signalled by a change of name from 'Dosgel' to 'IC3DDose', a name that has continued to this latest conference. The conference objectives were: to enhance the quality and accuracy of radiation therapy treatment through improved clinical dosimetry to investigate and understand the dosimetric challenges of modern radiation treatments to provide a forum to discuss the latest research and developments in 3D and advanced radiation dosimetry to energise and diversify dosimetry research and clinical practice by encouraging interaction and synergy between advanced, 3D and semi-3D dosimetry techniques We believe the conference program, with its excellent range of expert and specialist speakers, met these objectives. Thanks are due to all invited speakers for their participation, to the Local Organising Committee members for all their hard work in making the conference happen, particularly the small core administrative support group, and to the range of academic, organisation and commercial sponsors who generously supported the meeting. The Scientific Committee members are also thanked for reviewing the submitted manuscripts and for assisting in the editorial process. Finally, all who travelled to Sydney, Australia for the meeting are acknowledged for choosing to attend and contribute to making this a successful conference. Local Conference Organising Committee David Thwaites (Conference Convener) Clive Baldock Leanne Price Elizabeth Starkey May Whitaker Peter Greer Lois Holloway Phil Vial Robin Hill Conference Scientific Committee Sven Back (Sweden) Clive Baldock (Australia) Cheng-Shie Wuu (USA) Yves de Deene (Belgium) Simon Doran (UK) Geoffrey Ibbott (USA) Andrew Jirasek (Canada) Kevin Jordan (Canada) Martin Lepage (Canada) Mark Oldham (USA) Evangelos Pappas (Greece) John Schreiner (Canada) David Thwaites (Australia) The PDF also contains the conference program.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.037 |
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".