MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009145362 · doi:10.1118/1.2161403

Wall correction factors, , for thimble ionization chambers

2006· article· en· W2009145362 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley Buckley, D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryIonization chamberMonte Carlo methodIonizationPhysicsPhotonElectronCathode rayFormalism (music)Atomic physicsBeam (structure)Computational physicsNuclear physicsOpticsNuclear medicineIonMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The EGSnrc Monte Carlo user-code CSnrc is used to calculate wall correction factors, Pwall, for thimble ionization chambers in photon and electron beams. CSnrc calculated values of Pwall give closer agreement with previous experimental results than do the values from the standard formalism used in current dosimetry protocols. A set of Pwall values, computed at the reference depth in water, is presented for several commonly used thimble chambers. These values differ from the commonly used values by up to 0.8% for megavoltage photon beams, particularly for nominal beam energies below 6 MV. The sleeve effect, which is not currently taken into account by the TG-51 dosimetry protocol, is computed to be up to 0.3% and is in some cases larger than the Pwal1 correction itself. In electron beams, where dosimetry protocols assume a wall correction of unity, CSnrc calculations show Pwall values of up to 0.6% at the reference depth, depending on the wall material. Pwall is shown to be sensitive to the depth of measurement, varying by 2.5% for a graphite-walled cylindrical Farmer-like chamber between a depth of 0.5 cm and R50 in a 6 MeV electron beam.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207