MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032266053 · doi:10.1118/1.4894914

Poster - Thur Eve - 54: Radiotherapy and Non-Radiotherapy Safety Practices Beyond Licensing Expectations

2014· article· en· W2032266053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rick Kosierb

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationConformity assessmentSafety standardsBest practiceBusinessPublic relationsClass (philosophy)CommissionOrder (exchange)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer securityComputer sciencePolitical scienceOperations managementEngineeringLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment, and to implement Canada's international obligations on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In order to perform this regulatory activity, the CNSC issue licences and has its staff perform inspections to verify conformity to the aspects of those licences. Within the CNSC, the Accelerators and Class II Facilities Division (ACFD) is responsible for the regulatory oversight of Class II Prescribed Equipment used in medical, academic, and industrial sectors in Canada. In performing inspections, ACFD has encountered licensees with practices that are either below, meet or exceed regulatory expectations in specific areas. Unfortunately, none of these practices are ever communicated to the broader Class II community to help other licensees avoid the same problem or achieve high standards. In this poster, ACFD will highlight safety practices that go beyond expectations. These practices are taken from observations during site inspections between 2007 and 2013 and will be presented in six areas: Procedures, Participation, Awareness, Equipment, Servicing and Software. Each area briefly discusses a number of practices that the CNSC feels went beyond the expectations dictated by the licence. Where possible, names are added of the contact people at the centres who can be reached for full details of their implementations. It is hoped that this communication will assist other licensees to achieve these same high levels of compliance and possibly go beyond.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207