MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084591204 · doi:10.1051/radiopro/20116783s

Comparison of transfer parameters in TRS-472 and Canadian standard CSA N288.1 and doses predicted using them

2011· article· en· W2084591204 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sohan Chouhan, David J. Rowan, Marilyne Stuart

Bibliographic record

VenueRadioprotection · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadionuclideEnvironmental scienceTransfer factorForageFish <Actinopterygii>Soil scienceHydrology (agriculture)BiologyEcologyPhysicsGeologyNuclear physicsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared parameter values and models in N288.1 and TRS-472 and the doses predicted using them. The parameter values and models for tritium and C-14 are similar. For other radionuclides, the parameter values agree well for soil to plant transfer, and forage to animal products transfer. Agreement is not always good for the translocation factor (for which N288.1 is often more conservative) and for soil and sediment Kd and freshwater fish BAFs (for which N288.1 is often less conservative). Using parameter values from N288.1 rather than using those from TRS-472 results in higher doses for 8 of 9 radionuclides for airborne releases, and for 5 of 9 radionuclides for aquatic releases. For airborne releases, the maximum difference occurs for I-131, where using N288.1 parameter values results in doses being seven times higher. For aquatic releases, the difference reaches a factor of 194 for Co-60, with the use of N288.1 parameter values resulting in the lower dose. Where differences exist, site-specific values for key radionuclides should be obtained through a review of available data or new experiments. In the absence of site-specific data, the more conservative of the values in N288.1 and TRS-472 should be used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadioprotectionSame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207