THE HUMAN MONITORING LABORATORY???S NEW LUNG COUNTER: CALIBRATION AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM AND THE CAMECO CORPORATION???S LUNG COUNTER
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Human Monitoring Laboratory has replaced its lung counting system with four large area (85 mm x 30 mm) HPGe detectors, electronics, and software. The system has been calibrated with the same lung set and phantom that was used to calibrate the Human Monitoring Laboratory's previous lung counting system and the Cameco Corporation's mobile lung counter. The performance characteristics (efficiency and sensitivity) of all three systems are compared, with the Human Monitoring Laboratory's new system being more sensitive than the other systems by factor of 1.3. The large area detectors highlight the design deficiency of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's torso phantom, namely short lungs, as the lower two detectors are over inactive tissue (approximately 40%). As a result, both a two-detector and a three-detector array are actually more sensitive than a four-detector array in certain circumstances. This is, however, an unrealistic finding as human lungs are much longer (approximately 10 cm) than the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's phantom's lungs. The dosimetric implications of the new system's minimum detectable activities are put into perspective using (57)Co, (235)U, (238)U, (239)Pu, (241)Am, and natural uranium as example radionuclides.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it