MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028175610 · doi:10.1088/0952-4746/30/2/s03

Background dose-rates to reference animals and plants arising from exposure to naturally occurring radionuclides in aquatic environments

2010· article· en· W2028175610 on OpenAlexaff
A. Hosseini, N. A. Beresford, Justin Brown, D.G. Jones, Marcel M. Phaneuf, Håvard Thørring, T. Yankovich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiological Protection · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsRadionuclideEnvironmental scienceContext (archaeology)Aquatic ecosystemEnvironmental chemistryDosimetryFreshwater ecosystemSedimentToxicologyEcosystemBiologyEcologyNuclear medicineChemistryMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to put dose-rates derived in environmental impact assessments into context, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has recommended the structuring of effects data according to background exposure levels. The ICRP has also recommended a suite of reference animals and plants (RAPs), including seven aquatic organisms, for use within their developing framework. In light of these propositions, the objective of this work was to collate information on activity concentrations of naturally occurring primordial radionuclides for marine and freshwater ecosystems and apply appropriate dosimetry models to derive absorbed dose-rates. Although coverage of activity concentration data is comprehensive for sediment and water, few, or in some cases no, data were found for some RAPs, e.g. for frogs (Ranidae) and freshwater grasses (Poaceae) for most radionuclides. The activity concentrations for individual radionuclides in both organisms and their habitat often exhibit standard deviations that are substantially greater than arithmetic mean values, reflecting large variability in activity concentrations. To take account of variability a probabilistic approach was adopted. The dominating radionuclides contributing to exposure in the RAPs are (40)K, (210)Po and (226)Ra. The mean unweighted and weighted dose-rates for aquatic RAPs are in the ranges 0.07-0.39 microGy h(-1) and 0.37-1.9 microGy h(-1) respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiological ProtectionSame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207