MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2009· review· en· W2008443024 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.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.479
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