MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126707055 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq207

First response considerations for children exposed to a radiological dispersal device

2010· article· en· W2126707055 on OpenAlex
Edward Waller

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 institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiological weaponBiological dispersalLibrary scienceMedical physicsMedicineComputer scienceEnvironmental healthSurgeryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children are considered a vulnerable population during an accidental or deliberate release of radioactive material to the environment due to the fact that they have more active cell division compared with the adult population and therefore detrimental effects promulgate very quickly. Additionally, physical and social characteristics of children make them more prone to internalise a toxin (for example, children are closer to the ground where heavy aerosols can collect; children also have more relaxed sanitary habits compared with the adult population, which aids in hand-to-mouth transfer of contaminants). To confound matters, many emergency protocols are based upon a reference as opposed to a child. Although numerous radiological response exercises have been conducted in the years post 9/11, very few have utilised children actively in the scenarios. This paper considers observations made during a NATO exercise with scenarios covering radiological releases and which utilised a variety of children as exercise participants.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.317
Teacher spread0.282 · 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