Assessment Of The Cosmic Radiation Exposure On Canadian-based Routes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the recent recommendations of the ICRP-60 and in anticipation of possible regulation on occupational exposure of commercial aircrew, a two-phase investigation was carried out over a 1-y period to determine the total dose equivalent on representative Canadian-based flight routes. In the first phase of the study, dedicated scientific flights on a Northern round-trip route between Ottawa and Resolute Bay provided the opportunity to characterize the complex mixed-radiation field and to intercompare various instrumentation using both a conventional suite of powered detectors and passive dosimetry. In the second phase, volunteer aircrew carried (passive) neutron bubble detectors during their routine flight duties. From these measurements, the total dose equivalent was derived for a given route with a knowledge of the neutron fraction as determined from the scientific flights and computer code (CARI-3C) calculations. This study has yielded an extensive database of over 3,100 measurements providing the total dose equivalent for 385 different routes. By folding in flight frequency information and the accumulated flight hours, the annual occupational exposures of 20 flight crew have been determined. This study has indicated that most Canadian-based domestic and international aircrew will exceed the proposed annual ICRP-60 public limit of 1 mSv y(-1) but will be well below the occupational limit of 20 mSv y(-1).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".