Intercomparison of induced fields in Japanese male model for ELF magnetic field exposures: effect of different computational methods and codes
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
The present study provides an intercomparison of the induced quantities in a human model for uniform magnetic field exposures at extremely low frequency. A total of six research groups have cooperated in this joint intercomparison study. The computational conditions and numeric human phantom including the conductivity of tissue were set identically to focus on the uncertainty in computed fields. Differences in the maximal and 99th percentile value of the in situ electric field were less than 30 and 10 % except for the results of one group. Differences in the current density averaged over 1 cm(2) of the central nerve tissue are 10 % or less except for the results of one group. This comparison suggests that the computational uncertainty of the in situ electric field/current density due to different methods and coding is smaller than that caused by different human phantoms and the conductivitys of tissue, which was reported in a previous study.
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