MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A NEW PHANTOM FOR USE IN WHOLE BODY COUNTERS: A MONTE CARLO DESIGN PROJECT

2004· article· en· W2044185868 on OpenAlex
Gary H. Kramer, Kevin Capello, Arnon Ho

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodCalibrationComputer scienceWhole body countingRange (aeronautics)SimulationPhysicsMedical physicsOpticsNuclear physicsMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new phantom for calibration or performance testing of whole body counters has been conceptualized. The validity of the design has been validated by Monte Carlo simulations. The simulations have compared the expected counting efficiencies for the new design to those of a conventional phantom; both phantoms were placed in a virtual copy of the Human Monitoring Laboratory's whole body counter. The simulations covered a wide energy range (126-2,754 keV), and the agreement between the two types of phantoms was 0.988 +/- 0.005. Based on these findings, a prototype sliced BOMAB phantom corresponding to a Reference Female will be constructed. If the results were unfavorable, as was not the case, then the expense of building and testing the phantom would have been avoided.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.277 · 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