MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128778311 · doi:10.1080/09553000410001724207

On the difference between reference radiations used in radiobiology

2004· article· en· W2128778311 on OpenAlexaff
J. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiobiologyGamma rayMonte Carlo methodRadiationRelative biological effectivenessNuclear medicinePhysicsRadiation protectionRange (aeronautics)Medical physicsNuclear physicsMathematicsStatisticsIrradiationMaterials scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To add further support to the designation of hard gamma-rays, such as those emitted by (60)Co or (137)Cs, as the common reference radiation, as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Task Group 37 in the recent ICRP Publication 92. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study examined the microdosimetric properties of seven commonly used reference radiations and quantified differences in radiation quality among them. The principal tool is the proximity function, which is derived from the spatial distributions of energy deposits calculated by Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: The microdosimetric properties of the seven commonly used reference radiations were significantly different. However, there were no significant differences in the spectra of energy deposition in microscopic regions between hard gamma-rays over a wide range of distances of biological interest. CONCLUSIONS: From a microdosimetric point of view, gamma-rays from (60)Co or (137)Cs are the most suitable reference radiations for specification of the relative biological effectiveness.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation BiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207