Comparison of dosimetric standards of Canada and France for photons at<sup>60</sup>Co and higher energies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the results of a comparison of the dosimetric standards of Canada and France for photon beams at 60Co and a few higher energies. The present primary standard of absorbed dose to water for NRC, Canada is based on measurements made with a sealed water calorimeter. The corresponding standard of the LNHB, France is based on measurements made with a graphite calorimeter at 60Co energy and transferred to absorbed dose to water for 60Co and higher-energy photon beams using both ion chambers and Fricke dosemeters as transfer instruments. To make this comparison, we used three graphite-walled NE2571 Farmer chambers. The absorbed dose to water determined by the LNHB was greater than that determined by NRC by 0.20% at 60Co energy. This difference is not significant given the uncertainties on the standards. In order to do the comparison for higher-energy photons, we interpolated the NRC data set at the beam qualities used at the LNHB. When %dd(10)x is used as the method of specifying beam quality, the determination of absorbed dose to water by the LNHB is about 0.2% greater than that determined by NRC and consistent with the results at 60Co. However, when using TPR20,10 as the beam quality specifier, the LNHB determination is greater than the NRC's determination by 0.8% and 1.2% at 12 and 20 MV respectively. This discrepancy, which systematically increases with increasing energy, eventually exceeds the uncertainties in the ratio of the standards, estimated to be 0.7%. This underscores the importance of selecting the method of specifying beam quality, either %dd(10)x or TPR20,10, at least for the 'soft' beams used by NRC in this comparison. In the case of the air kerma standards, which were also compared at 60Co energy, the LNHB determination was greater than NRC's by 0.14%, which is not significant given the uncertainties on the standards.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".