Inter-laboratory comparison of numerical dosimetry for human exposure to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields
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
In recent years, with the availability of high resolution models of the human body, numerical computations of induced electric fields and currents have been made in more than one laboratory for various exposure conditions. Despite the verification of computational methods, questions are often asked about the reliability of these data. In this paper, computational results from two laboratories that presented data in compatible formats are compared, supplemented with additional data from the third laboratory. Two exposures to uniform fields at 60 Hz are evaluated. The human body models used in the computations are different and so are the computation al methods and codes. There are some differences in the conductivity values used for some of the tissues, as well. The results of the comparison confirm that these data are reliable, as the overall agreement is reasonably good and the differences can be rationally explained. This comparison also underscores the importance of accurate data on the dielectric properties of tissues.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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