MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of custom neutron shielding in the maze of radiotherapy accelerators

2003· article· en· W2044745907 on OpenAlex

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

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsElectromagnetic shieldingNeutronNeutron radiationEquivalent doseNuclear engineeringMonte Carlo methodNeutron sourceRadiation protectionMaterials sciencePhysicsNuclear physicsNuclear medicineMedicineEngineeringMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation was performed to examine the neutron dose equivalent in a radiotherapy maze lined with a customised neutron shielding material. The accelerator investigated was a Varian Clinac 2100C/D using 18 MV photons, and the neutron shielding utilised at this centre was Premadex commercially available neutron shielding. Based on Monte Carlo simulations, properly installed customised neutron shielding may reduce the neutron dose equivalent by up to a factor of 8 outside the maze, depending upon the installation. In addition, it was determined that the neutron dose near the entrance to the maze may be reduced by approximately 40% by using customised neutron shielding in the maze, as compared with a facility not using this shielding. This would have a positive dose-saving effect in doorless maze designs.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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