THE USE OF AUTORADIOGRAPHY FOR INVESTIGATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN LUNG COUNTER CALIBRATION SOURCES
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 shows that autoradiography is a useful technique for investigating radioactivity distributions in lung phantoms and planar sources. It was applied to a sliced lung phantom that had activity homogeneously distributed throughout the tissue substitute material and to laminated planar sources in an attempt to answer three questions: 1) Was the activity distribution the same in each slice of the sliced homogeneous lung set? 2) Was the activity distribution the same for each of the laminated planar sources? and 3) Were the activity distributions the same between slices and planar sources? The activity distribution, including identification of some locations of elevated activity in the sliced homogeneous lungs, was easily obtained using autoradiography. This study demonstrates that neither the sliced homogeneous lung sets nor the laminated planar sources had a homogeneous distribution of radioactivity, as had been previously thought.
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