Electric fields in the human body resulting from 60-Hz contact currents
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
Contact currents occur when a person touches conductive surfaces at different potentials and completes a path for current flow through the body. Such currents provide an additional coupling mechanism to that, due to the direct field effect between the human body and low-frequency external fields. The scalar potential finite difference method, with minor modifications, is applied to assess current density and electric field within excitable tissue and bone marrow due to contact current. An anatomically correct adult model is used, as well as a proportionally downsized child model. Three pathways of contact current are modeled: hand to opposite hand and both feet, hand to hand only, and hand to both feet. Because of its larger size relative to the child, the adult model has lower electric field and current-density values in tissues/unit of contact current. For a contact current of 1 mA [the occupational reference level set by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Protection (ICNIRP)], the current density in brain does not exceed the basic restriction of 10 mA/m2. The restriction is exceeded slightly in the spine, and by a factor of more than 2 in the heart. For a contact current of 0.5 mA (ICNIRP general public reference level), the basic restriction of 2 mA/m2 is exceeded several-fold in the spine and heart. Several microamperes of contact current produces tens of mV/m within the child's lower arm bone marrow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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