MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118596110 · doi:10.1093/rpd/nch217

Exposure of aircraft crew to cosmic radiation: on-board intercomparison of various dosemeters

2004· article· en· W2118596110 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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsCrewCosmic rayCOSMIC cancer databaseEnvironmental scienceOn boardAeronauticsRadiationAerospace engineeringRemote sensingMedical physicsPhysicsAstronomyNuclear physicsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Owing to their professional activity, flight crews may receive a dose of some millisieverts within a year; airline passengers may also be concerned. The effective dose is to be estimated using various experimental and calculation tools. The European project DOSMAX (Dosimetry of Aircrew Exposure during Solar Maximum) was initiated in 2000 extending to 2004 to complete studies over the current solar cycle during the solar maximum phase. To compare various dosemeters in real conditions simultaneously in the same radiation field, an intercomparison was organised aboard a Paris-Tokyo round-trip flight. Both passive and active detectors were used. Good agreement was observed for instruments determining the different components of the radiation field; the mean ambient dose equivalent for the round trip was 129 +/- 10 microSv. The agreement of values obtained for the total dose obtained by measurements and by calculations is very satisfying.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · 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