MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026726875 · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/47/1a/06025

Comparison of the standards for absorbed dose to water of the NRC and the BIPM for accelerator photon beams

2010· article· en· W2026726875 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsAbsorbed doseDosimetryPhotonPhysicsNuclear physicsNuclear medicineMedical physicsRadiochemistryEnvironmental scienceRadiationOpticsChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison of the dosimetry for high-energy accelerator photon beams was carried out between the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in June 2009. The comparison was based on the determination of absorbed dose to water for three radiation qualities. The comparison result, reported as a ratio of the NRC and the BIPM evaluations, is 0.997 at 6 MV, 1.001 at 10 MV and 0.994 at 25 MV, each with a relative standard uncertainty of 6 × 10−3. This result is the first of the ongoing BIPM.RI(I)-K6 comparison.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it