An investigation of the photon energy dependence of the EPR alanine dosimetry system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) alanine dosimetry system is based on EPR measurements of radicals formed in alanine by ionizing radiation. The system has been studied to determine its energy dependence for photons in the 10-30 MV region relative to those of 60Co and to find out if the system would be suitable for dosimetry comparisons. The irradiations were carried out at the National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada and the doses ranged from 8 to 54 Gy. The EPR measurements were performed at the University of Oslo, Norway. The ratio of the slope of the alanine reading versus dose-to-water curve for a certain linac photon beam quality and the corresponding slope for a reference 60Co gamma-radiation gives an experimental measure of the relative dose-to-water response of the EPR alanine dosimetry system. For calculating the linear regression coefficients of these alanine reading versus dose curves, the method of weighted least squares was used. This method is assumed to produce more accurate regression coefficients when applied to EPR dosimetry than the common method of standard least squares. The overall uncertainty on the ratio of slopes was between 0.5 and 0.6% for all three linac energies. The relative response for all the linac beams compared to cobalt was less than unity: by about 0.5% for the 20 and 30 MV points but by more than 1% for the 10 MV point. The given standard uncertainties negate concluding that there is any significant internal variation in the measured response as a function of beam quality between the three linac energies. Thus, we calculated the average dose response for all three energies and found that the alanine response is 0.8% (+/-0.5%) lower for high energy x-rays than for 60Co gamma-rays. This result indicates a small energy dependence in the alanine response for the high-energy photons relative to 60Co which may be significant. This result is specific to our dosimetry system (alanine with 20% polyethylene binder pressed into a particular shape) including its waterproofing sleeve of PMMA (2 mm thick); however, we expect that this result may apply to other similar detectors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".