Internal dosimetry: towards harmonisation and coordination of research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CONRAD Project is a Coordinated Network for Radiation Dosimetry funded by the European Commission 6th Framework Programme. The activities developed within CONRAD Work Package 5 ('Coordination of Research on Internal Dosimetry') have contributed to improve the harmonisation and reliability in the assessment of internal doses. The tasks carried out included a study of uncertainties and the refinement of the IDEAS Guidelines associated with the evaluation of doses after intakes of radionuclides. The implementation and quality assurance of new biokinetic models for dose assessment and the first attempt to develop a generic dosimetric model for DTPA therapy are important WP5 achievements. Applications of voxel phantoms and Monte Carlo simulations for the assessment of intakes from in vivo measurements were also considered. A Nuclear Emergency Monitoring Network (EUREMON) has been established for the interpretation of monitoring data after accidental or deliberate releases of radionuclides. Finally, WP5 group has worked on the update of the existing IDEAS bibliographic, internal contamination and case evaluation databases. A summary of CONRAD WP5 objectives and results is presented here.
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 | 0.278 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".