MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109492564 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq175

Method comparison for 241Am emergency urine bioassay

2010· article· en· W2109492564 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioassayUrineEnvironmental scienceChromatographyMedicineChemistryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

241Am is one of the high-risk radionuclides that might be used in a terrorist attack. 241Am in urine bioassay can identify the contaminated individuals who need immediate medical intervention and decontamination. This paper compares three methods for the measurement of 241Am in urine, namely liquid scintillation counting (LSC), inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and gamma spectrometry (GS), at two levels, 20 and 2 Bq l(-1). All three methods satisfied the ANSI N13.30 radio-bioassay criteria for accuracy and repeatability. ICP-MS offered the best sensitivity and fastest sample turnaround; however, the ICP-MS system used in this work may not be available in many bioassay laboratories. LSC and GS are more commonly available instruments. GS requires minimal or no sample preparation, which makes it a good candidate method. Moreover, the sample throughput can be significantly improved if the GS and LSC methods are automated.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0060.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.286 · 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