Synchrotron radiation shielding design and ICRP radiological protection quantities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protection and operational quantities as defined by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) are the two sets of quantities recommended for use in radiological protection for external radiation. Since the '80s, the protection quantities have evolved from the concept of dose equivalent to effective dose equivalent to effective dose, and the associated conversion coefficients have undergone changes. In this work, the influence of three different versions of ICRP photon dose conversion coefficients in the synchrotron radiation shielding calculations of an experimental enclosure has been examined. The versions are effective dose equivalent (ICRP Publication 51), effective dose (ICRP Publication 74), and effective dose (ICRP Publication 116) conversion coefficients. The sources of the synchrotron radiation white beam into the enclosure were a bending magnet, an undulator and a wiggler. The ranges of photons energy from these sources were 10-200 keV for the bending magnet and undulator, and 10-500 keV for the wiggler. The design criterion aimed a radiation leakage less than 0.5 µSv h(-1) from the enclosure. As expected, larger conversion coefficients in ICRP Publication 51 lead to higher calculated dose rates. However, the percentage differences among the calculated dose rates get smaller once shielding is added, and the choice of conversion coefficients set did not affect the final shielding decision.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".