The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: Study of Errors in Dosimetry
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
Thierry-Chef, I., Marshall, M., Fix, J. J., Bermann, F., Gilbert, E. S., Hacker, C., Heinmiller, B., Murray, W., Pearce, M. S., Utterback, D., Bernar, K., Deboodt, P., Eklof, M., Griciene, B., Holan, K., Hyvonen, H., Kerekes, A., Lee, M-C., Moser, M., Pernicka, F. and Cardis, E. The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: Study of Errors in Dosimetry. Radiat. Res. 167, 380–395 (2007).To provide direct estimates of cancer risk after low-dose protracted exposure to ionizing radiation, a large-scale epidemiological study of nuclear industry workers was conducted in 15 countries. As part of this study, identification and quantification of errors in historical recorded doses was conducted based on a review of dosimetric practices and technologies in participating facilities. The main sources of errors on doses from “high-energy” photons (100–3000 keV) were identified as the response of dosimeters in workplace exposure conditions and historical calibration practices. Errors related to dosimetry technology and radiation fields were quantified to derive period- and facility-specific estimates of bias and uncertainties in recorded doses. This was based on (1) an evaluation of predominant workplace radiation from measurement studies and dosimetry expert assessment and (2) an estimation of the energy and geometry response of dosimeters used historically in study facilities. Coefficients were derived to convert recorded doses to Hp (10) and organ dose, taking into account different aspects of the calibration procedures. A parametric, lognormal error structure model was developed to describe errors in doses as a function of facility and time period. Doses from other radiation types, particularly neutrons and radionuclide intake, could not be adequately reconstructed in the framework of the 15-Country Study. Workers with substantial doses from these radiation types were therefore identified and excluded from analyses. Doses from “lower-energy” photons (<100 keV) and from “higher-energy” photons (>3 MeV) were estimated to be small.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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