MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121881568 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq202

Would children be adequately protected by existing intervention levels during a radionuclear emergency?

2010· article· en· W2121881568 on OpenAlex
B. L. Tracy

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
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBLISSIntervention (counseling)MedicineLibrary sciencePsychologyMedical physicsComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question arises as to whether radiation standards and guidelines set for adults are sufficiently protective of children. To answer this question, published literature values have been used to calculate radiation doses to children and adults from external and internal exposure to a suite of 30 radionuclides commonly found in the environment. It was found that older children and adults face about the same degree of risk from external radiation exposures, although doses may be ∼30 % elevated for infants due to their smaller body size. Inhalation risks in children are to a large degree offset by lower breathing rates and it is only in the case of iodine isotopes that children are more at risk. Ingestion of contaminated food products is more complex. Isotopes of iodine and the bone-seeking elements strontium and radium can give radiation doses up to an order of magnitude higher than for adults.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.287 · 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