EFFECT OF MASS, AT A FIXED HEIGHT, ON THE COUNTING EFFICIENCY OF A BOMAB PHANTOM IN THREE TYPES OF WHOLE BODY COUNTER MODELED BY MCNP5
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using demographic data, a series of BOMAB phantoms were developed to study the effect of size, at a fixed height, of a BOMAB phantom using Monte Carlo simulations in three different whole body counting systems: the HML's scanning detector whole body counter, a FastScan whole body counter, and a StandFast whole body counter. The latter has had two counting geometries simulated--one for the recommended position, and another simulating a constant detector-to-front-of-phantom distance. The six phantom sizes corresponded to the following masses: 48 kg, 73 kg, 98 kg, 123 kg, 148 kg, and 173 kg. The effect of size varies with photon energy, as might be expected, and at any given energy is an exponential function of the mass. An equation has been found that fits most cases very well and is still good in poorer cases. Persons lighter in mass than the normal calibration phantom (73 kg) will have their body burdens overestimated by as much as a factor of 1.3, depending on mass, photon energy, and counting geometry. Conversely, heavier individuals will have their body burdens underestimated by as much as a factor of 1.9, depending on mass, photon energy, and counting geometry.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it