MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OVERVIEW OF HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND EMERGENCY PLANNING SOFTWARE OF USE TO RN FIRST RESPONDERS

2009· review· en· W2008443024 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Waller, Kyle Millage, William F. Blakely, James A. Ross, J. R. Mercier, David J. Sandgren, Ira H. Levine, William E. Dickerson, Jeffrey Nemhauser, John S. Nasstrom, G Sugiyama, Steve Homann, Brooke Buddemeier, Carl A Curling, Deena S. Disraelly

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiological weaponSoftware deploymentSoftwareMedical emergencyEvent (particle physics)Relevance (law)Psychological interventionComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Medical physicsComputer securityMedicineSoftware engineeringNursingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are numerous software tools available for field deployment, reach-back, training and planning use in the event of a radiological or nuclear terrorist event. Specialized software tools used by CBRNe responders can increase information available and the speed and accuracy of the response, thereby ensuring that radiation doses to responders, receivers, and the general public are kept as low as reasonably achievable. Software designed to provide health care providers with assistance in selecting appropriate countermeasures or therapeutic interventions in a timely fashion can improve the potential for positive patient outcome. This paper reviews various software applications of relevance to radiological and nuclear events that are currently in use by first responders, emergency planners, medical receivers, and criminal investigators.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.115 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207