MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092051003 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/18/015

The radiation dose from a proposed measurement of arsenic and selenium in human skin

2010· article· en· W2092051003 on OpenAlexafffund
Mihai R. Gherase, Joanna E. Mader, David Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersHealth CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMaterials scienceDosimeterThermoluminescent dosimeterIrradiationNuclear medicineRadiationAttenuationThermoluminescenceRadiochemistryOpticsDosimetryOptoelectronicsLuminescenceChemistryMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dose measurements following 10 min irradiations with a portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometer composed of a miniature x-ray tube and a silicon PiN diode detector were performed using thermoluminescent dosimeters consisting of LiF:Mg,Ti chips of 3 mm diameter and 0.4 mm thickness. The table-top setup of the spectrometer was used for all measurements. The setup included a stainless steel lid which served as a radiation shield. Two rectangular polyethylene skin/soft tissue phantoms with two cylindrical plaster of Paris bone phantoms were used to study the effect of x-ray beam attenuation and backscatter on the measured dose. Eight different irradiation experiments were performed. The average dose rate values measured with TLD chips within a 1 x 1 cm(2) area were between 4.8 and 12.8 mGy min(-1). The equivalent dose for a 1 x 1 cm(2) skin area was estimated to be 13.2 mSv. The maximum measured dose rate values with a single TLD chip were between 7.5 and 25.1 mGy min(-1). The effective dose corresponding to a proposed arsenic/selenium skin measurement was estimated to be 0.13 microSv for a 2 min irradiation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207