THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL IN-VIVO MONITORING INTERCOMPARISON PROGRAM FOR WHOLE BODY COUNTING FACILITIES BY CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES AGENCIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian National Calibration Reference Centre for In-Vivo Monitoring and the United States Department of Energy collaborated to offer a second international in vivo intercomparison program to whole body counting facilities in 1996. This program used a Reference Female phantom shell filled with radioactive tissue-substitute polyurethane to simulate a uniform fission-product distribution in soft tissues. The nuclides used were 137Cs and 60Co. The phantom also contained 40K homogeneously distributed in an amount similar to a Reference Female to produce a representative Compton background in the resulting spectra. Participants were asked to identify the nuclides and report activities for all except 40K. They were also asked to measure the precision of counting and supply the MDA for 137Cs and 60Co. The bias results were in the range of -30% to +80% with most facilities falling inside the range of -25% to +50% (Canadian and U.S. acceptable performance criteria). Results indicated that there was no measurable size dependency for this phantom. All reported precisions were less than 5% but NaI detector based systems seemed to have a systematic uncertainty in addition to Poisson variability. Contrarily, this was not found for Ge detector based systems. MDA data was scattered (14-3,500 Bq for 137Cs and 9-460 Bq for 60Co) and only suggested that lengthening the counting time improves MDA.
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 | 0.028 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".