MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994484002 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq198

Doses to children from intakes by ingestion

2010· article· en· W1994484002 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngestionMedicineEnvironmental healthToxicologyIntervention (counseling)RadionuclideInternal medicineNursingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, sensitivities and doses to children from intakes of radionuclides by ingestion were studied relative to adults. Generally speaking, doses to children were higher due to their higher radiosensitiveness to many radionuclides, even though they consume less food and water than adults. Therefore, the action levels in the Canadian guidelines for the restriction of radioactively contaminated food and water following a nuclear emergency were selected as the most restrictive among the six age groups that could lead to an individual receiving a dose equal to a specified intervention level of 1 mSv. For non-emergency situations, the specified intervention level is 0.1 mSv. At such a low intervention level, the maximum acceptable concentrations (MAC) in drinking water are normally derived for adults. Although this is a common practice for guidelines in non-emergency operations, for those radionuclides when the doses to children are more than 10 times higher than the doses to adults, the MAC in non-emergency situations should be limited to, at least, as restrictive as the action levels for interventional action following a nuclear emergency.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207