Accuracy of Spencer‐Attix cavity theory and calculations of fluence correction factors for the air kerma formalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EGSnrc calculations of ion chamber response and Spencer-Attix (SA) restricted stopping-power ratios are used to test the assumptions of the SA cavity theory and to assess the accuracy of this theory as it applies to the air kerma formalism for 60Co beams. Consistent with previous reports, the EGSnrc calculations show that the SA cavity theory, as it is normally applied, requires a correction for the perturbation of the charged particle fluence (K(fl)) by the presence of the cavity. The need for K(fl) corrections arises from the fact that the standard prescription for choosing the low-energy threshold delta in the SA restricted stopping-power ratio consistently underestimates the values of delta needed if no perturbation to the fluence is assumed. The use of fluence corrections can be avoided by appropriately choosing delta, but it is not clear how delta can be calculated from first principles. Values of delta required to avoid K(fl) corrections were found to be consistently higher than delta values obtained using the conventional approach and are also observed to be dependent on the composition of the wall in addition to the cavity size. Values of K(fl) have been calculated for many of the graphite-walled ion chambers used by the national metrology institutes around the world and found to be within 0.04% of unity in all cases, with an uncertainty of about 0.02%.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".