INFLUENCE OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE CARBON POOL ON DOSE FACTORS FOR INTAKES OF TRITIUM AND 14C-LABELED COMPOUNDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ICRP's biokinetic models for five tritium-labeled and five 14C-labeled compounds (not including radiopharmaceutical compounds and excepting carbon monoxide) incorporate a compartment representing the body carbon pool. Using the ICRP models, as coded into the Genmod-PC internal dosimetry code, higher dose coefficients are calculated for females than for ICRP's Reference Man. The ICRP's committed effective dose coefficients for the ingestion of tritiated water and organically bound tritium by the adult male are 1.8 x 10(-11) and 4.2 x 10(-11) Sv Bq(-1), respectively. Using the Genmod-PC code, the corresponding dose coefficients for the adult female are 2.2 x 10(-11) and 6.2 x 10(-11) Sv Bq(-1), which are 25% and 46% greater than the adult male's. Similarly, the ICRP's dose coefficient is 5.8 x 10(-10) Sv Bq(-11) for an intake of organically bound 14C by the adult male, and the estimated dose coefficient using Genmod is 54% greater for the adult female. The carbon retention half-time for an average adult female is calculated as 51 d and that for an average adult male, 38 d; the latter is similar to the carbon half-time of 40 d recommended by International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The longer turnover time of whole body carbon in females is one factor that causes the dose coefficients for females to be higher than those of males; a second factor is the smaller whole body mass of ICRP's Reference Woman compared to Reference Man.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".