MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040377573 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/19/5953

Determination of relative ion chamber calibration coefficients from depth-ionization measurements in clinical electron beams

2014· article· en· W2040377573 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryan Muir, M McEwen, D. W. O. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIonization chamberCalibrationIonizationIonElectronLinear particle acceleratorAtomic physicsBeam (structure)Energy (signal processing)Cathode rayPhysicsMaterials scienceOpticsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method is presented to obtain ion chamber calibration coefficients relative to secondary standard reference chambers in electron beams using depth-ionization measurements. Results are obtained as a function of depth and average electron energy at depth in 4, 8, 12 and 18 MeV electron beams from the NRC Elekta Precise linac. The PTW Roos, Scanditronix NACP-02, PTW Advanced Markus and NE 2571 ion chambers are investigated. The challenges and limitations of the method are discussed. The proposed method produces useful data at shallow depths. At depths past the reference depth, small shifts in positioning or drifts in the incident beam energy affect the results, thereby providing a built-in test of incident electron energy drifts and/or chamber set-up. Polarity corrections for ion chambers as a function of average electron energy at depth agree with literature data. The proposed method produces results consistent with those obtained using the conventional calibration procedure while gaining much more information about the behavior of the ion chamber with similar data acquisition time. Measurement uncertainties in calibration coefficients obtained with this method are estimated to be less than 0.5%. These results open up the possibility of using depth-ionization measurements to yield chamber ratios which may be suitable for primary standards-level dissemination.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207