ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL AVERAGE RADON CONCENTRATION IN THE NORMAL LIVING AREA FROM SHORT-TERM TESTS
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
Most residential radon guidelines refer to annual average radon concentration in the normal living area. However, decisions on whether a house needs mitigation are usually based on short term radon tests. Depending on where detectors are placed and when tests are performed, results of those measurements can differ significantly from the annual average radon concentration in the normal living area. We provide a practical method based on survey results in 5486 Canadian houses to estimate annual average radon levels from results of screening tests. The average ratio of radon concentration in the basement to that of the upper floors in a house is determined, and the average relative seasonal variations of radon levels in the basement and of the upper floors are identified. Based on these relative quantities, estimate factors are derived for four different combinations of detector location and the living area and tabulated for different calendar periods of radon testing. The annual average radon level can be estimated by multiplying the result of a short-term screening test with the appropriate estimate factor given in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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