MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134274578 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp066

A methodology for improving throughput using portal monitors

2009· article· en· W2134274578 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gary H. Kramer, Kevin Capello, B. M. Hauck, G. Moodie, Andrew R. DiNardo, L.C. Burns, Alan Y. Chiang, Leonora Marro, J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)Library scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Internal Radiation Assessment Section (NIRAS), which operates the Canadian National Calibration Reference Centre for Bioassay and In Vivo Monitoring, has field deployable equipment for emergency response. A substantial part of this tool kit is a set of portal monitors that can be used to quickly screen people into the 'uncontaminated' and the 'contaminated'. The former term refers to a person who has <60 kBq (empirical practical detection limit) of activation/fission products and the latter group is contaminated by that amount or more. Recent field work has shown that one type of the NIRAS's portal monitors can be alarmed at significant distances if the level of contamination is high enough. The other types, which do not initiate a count until either an infra-red beam is broken or a proximity detector is activated, do not alarm but their background will be raised and this causes other problems. This paper proposes a method of group monitoring to help speed up the process of screening a large number of potentially contaminated persons using portal monitors. In short, the group of potentially contaminated persons will be kept isolated from the portal stations. Depending on a real-time estimate of the percentage of contaminated persons in the crowd, groups of persons will be selected for screening. The hypergeometric distribution has been used to decide on the sampling group size with an expectation that 90% of the time no contaminated person will be present in the group. Once removed from the main waiting area, the group will be pre-screened and then, depending on the result, sent to the appropriate portal. It is anticipated that this will greatly speed up processing as it substantially reduces the transit time. Transits times have also been estimated in addition to the number of personnel required to run all of NIRAS's field deployable equipment.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207