Evidence of children's vulnerability to radiation in the context of radiological/nuclear events and considerations for emergency response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International organisations, such as International Atomic Energy Agency, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and World Health Organisation, together with committees of experts such as Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation and Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, have assessed the effects of radiation on large exposed populations (Chernobyl accident, and Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bombings) and on nuclear energy workers and people living near nuclear facilities. Childhood and in utero exposure to moderate and high levels of ionizing radiation, such as those experienced during the atomic bombings of Japan, or from radiotherapy, is an established cause of leukaemia and solid cancer. There is no evidence of increase in solid cancers (excluding thyroid cancer) or leukaemia in the children from Chernobyl, and no evident link between worker's exposure to radiation and leukaemia in their offspring or with the presence of leukaemia clusters around nuclear power plants. It has also not been possible to demonstrate the evidence of radiation hereditary effects in human populations. In accordance with international guidance, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission recommends optimisation of protection strategies to reduce doses to children. The development of credible radiological/nuclear event scenarios would assist in identifying probable sources of radioactivity and pathways of exposure for children. Such scenarios should then be used to identify protection strategies appropriate for children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".