Modelling fields induced in humans by 50/60 Hz magnetic fields: reliability of the results and effects of model variations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison of anatomically realistic human models and numerical codes in the dosimetry of power frequency magnetic fields. The groups at the University of Victoria and the National Radiological Protection Board have calculated the induced electric fields in both their 'UVic and 'NORMAN' models using independently developed codes. A detailed evaluation has been performed for a uniform magnetic field at 60 Hz. Comparisons of all dosimetric metrics computed in each particular model agree within 2% or less. Since in situ measurements cannot be performed in humans, and achievable accuracy of measurements in models and animals is not likely to be better than 10-15%, the comparisons presented should provide confidence limits on computational dosimetry. An evaluation of the effect of model size, shape and resolution has also been performed and further illuminated the reasons for differences in induced electric fields for various human body models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it