MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Usefulness of laboratory neutron fields

2003· article· en· W2115060415 on OpenAlexafffund
J. C. Nunes, R.T. Faught

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedCANDU Owners GroupGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCalibrationNeutronEquivalent doseField (mathematics)Nuclear engineeringPhysicsComputational physicsEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceNuclear physicsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A moderator-type neutron survey meter, intended for radiation protection use at a nuclear power plant, was tested in five laboratory neutron fields, including neutron fields that resemble ones found in some reactor workplaces. Calibration constants (counts Sv(-1)) and responses (ratios of measured to reference values of ambient dose equivalent) were determined by measurement for each neutron field. Theoretical calibration constants were calculated for each field using a response function from the literature. These theoretical calibration constants were consistent with ones determined from measurement. Theoretical calibration constants were also calculated for several power-plant workplace neutron spectra. The range of calibration constants determined provided some insight into the amount of over-response and under-response that this particular survey meter would be likely to give when used in the intended workplace. Values for the calibration constant were suggested.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207