MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1994251787 · doi:10.1118/1.2965940

Poster - Thurs Eve-21: Experience with the Velocity(TM) pre-commissioning services

2008· article· en· W1994251787 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daryl Scora, Katharina E. Sixel, Darcy Mason, Cathy Neath

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of Durham
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear particle acceleratorWedge (geometry)Project commissioningBeam (structure)Medical physicsSiemensPhysicsComputer scienceSimulationEngineeringElectrical engineeringOpticsPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the first Canadian users of the Velocity™ program offered by Siemens, we would like to share our experience with the program. The Velocity program involves the measurement of the commissioning data by an independent Physics consulting company at the factory test cell. The data collected was used to model the treatment beams in our planning system in parallel with the linac delivery and installation. Beam models and a complete data book were generated for two photon energies including Virtual Wedge, physical wedge, and IMRT, and 6 electron energies at 100 and 110 cm SSD. Our final beam models are essentially the Velocity models with some minor modifications to customize the fit to our liking. Our experience with the Velocity program was very positive; the data collection was professional and efficient. It allowed us to proceed with confidence in our beam data and modeling and to spend more time on other aspects of opening a new clinic. With the assistance of the program we were able to open a three-linac clinic with Image-Guided IMRT within 4.5 months of machine delivery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.016

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→