Electric fields induced in humans and rodents by 60 Hz magnetic fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical computations are used to evaluate electric field dosimetry for high-resolution anatomically based inhomogeneous models of a human male child, and male and female rats and mice, under exposure to 60 Hz uniform magnetic field sources of three perpendicular orientations. The goal is to compare the child data to previously computed adult dosimetry and to evaluate the accuracy of linear scaling of organ dosimetry between species. It is expected that this work will aid in the design and interpretation of experiments involving rodents. It is found that child-to-adult and mouse-to-rat organ dosimetry shows the expected linear dependence on the geometric scale factor between models. The comparison between mice and the human child shows that postural and individual organ differences do have significant effects, and that care is required in scaling-based extrapolation of rodent experiment results to humans. However, for unrestrained animals, linear scaling appears to be a reasonable and conservative approach. Most of the rodent organ fields, for at least one field orientation, are greater than those expected from linear scaling.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".