MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000201012 · doi:10.1097/hp.0b013e318213a5da

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON EMERGENCY RADIOBIOASSAY: CONSIDERATIONS, GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2011· article· en· W2000201012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National DefenceDefence Research and Development CanadaAtomic Energy (Canada)Health Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessRadiological weaponPublic healthMedical emergencyEmergency managementEmergency responsePolitical scienceMedicinePublic relationsEnvironmental healthMedical educationBusinessNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An international workshop on emergency radiobioassay was held in Ottawa, Canada, 1-3 September 2010. Sixty-five scientists and public health officials from five countries attended the workshop and gave 36 presentations. During the workshop, many considerations were raised, gaps identified, and recommendations given for emergency radiobioassay for both preparedness and response in case of a radiological or nuclear incident. In short, some bioassay methods and protocols need to be developed, validated, and exercised; national and international radiobioassay laboratory networks should be established; and communications and collaborations among public health officials, monitoring experts, and medical staff are encouraged. All these activities are required to make us better prepared for an RN 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.253 · 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