Evidence for using Monte Carlo calculated wall attenuation and scatter correction factors for three styles of graphite-walled ion chamber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basic equation for establishing a 60Co air-kerma standard based on a cavity ionization chamber includes a wall correction term that corrects for the attenuation and scatter of photons in the chamber wall. For over a decade, the validity of the wall correction terms determined by extrapolation methods (K(w)K(cep)) has been strongly challenged by Monte Carlo (MC) calculation methods (K(wall)). Using the linear extrapolation method with experimental data, K(w)K(cep) was determined in this study for three different styles of primary-standard-grade graphite ionization chamber: cylindrical, spherical and plane-parallel. For measurements taken with the same 60Co source, the air-kerma rates for these three chambers, determined using extrapolated K(w)K(cep) values, differed by up to 2%. The MC code 'EGSnrc' was used to calculate the values of K(wall) for these three chambers. Use of the calculated K(wall) values gave air-kerma rates that agreed within 0.3%. The accuracy of this code was affirmed by its reliability in modelling the complex structure of the response curve obtained by rotation of the non-rotationally symmetric plane-parallel chamber. These results demonstrate that the linear extrapolation technique leads to errors in the determination of air-kerma.
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 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".