MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the St. Petersburg Phantom with a BOMAB Phantom in the ORTEC StandFast Whole Body Counter: A Monte Carlo Simulation

2008· article· en· W2069695201 on OpenAlexaff
Gary H. Kramer, Kevin Capello, Jeremy Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodPhysicsPhotonPhoton energyRange (aeronautics)OpticsMaterials scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three sizes of the St. Petersburg phantom have been compared to six sizes of BOMAB phantoms measured by a virtual StandFast whole body counter using Monte Carlo simulations to investigate if the counting efficiencies are equivalent. This work shows that previously published data comparing the Reference Man sized phantom at 662 keV is supported; however, the simulations also show that the smaller sized St. Petersburg phantoms do not agree well with BOMAB phantoms. It is concluded that, compared with BOMAB phantoms, the St. Petersburg phantoms are system dependent and that they should be validated over a wide photon energy range against corresponding BOMAB phantoms prior to their use for calibrating whole body counters.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207