MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2094018422 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/2/009

Analysis of dose perturbation factors of a NACP-02 ionization chamber in clinical electron beams

2008· article· en· W2094018422 on OpenAlexaff
E Chin, Hugo Palmans, D R Shipley, Michael Bailey, Frank Verhaegen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
FundersNational Physical Laboratory
KeywordsElectronIonizationPerturbation (astronomy)Ionization chamberAtomic physicsPhysicsNuclear physicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For well-guarded plane-parallel ionization chambers, international dosimetry protocols recommend a value of unity for electron perturbation factors in water. However, recent data published by various groups have challenged this. Specifically for the NACP-02 chamber, non-unity electron perturbation factors have already been published by Verhaegen et al (2006 Phys. Med. Biol. 51 1221-35) and Buckley and Rogers (2006 Med. Phys. 33 1788-96). Recently it was found that the mass thickness of the front chamber window can be 35% greater than is listed in the IAEA's TRS-398 absorbed dose protocol (Chin et al 2008 Phys. Med. Biol. 53 N119-26). This study therefore recalculated NACP-02 electron perturbation correction factors for energies 4-18 MeV at depths z(ref) and R(50) to determine the effect of the chamber model change. Results showed that perturbation factors at z(ref) are fairly stable for similar chamber models but become highly sensitive to small changes at deeper depths. The results also showed some dependence on using 1 keV versus 10 keV for the transport cut-off. Additional investigations revealed that the wall perturbation factor, p(wall), is strongly influenced by the chamber back wall at z(ref) and at larger depths small changes in the positioning of the effective point of measurement cause large fluctuations in the final value. Finally, the cavity perturbation factor, p(cav), was found to be primarily influenced by electron backscatter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→