MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155308670 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncv155

Radiation-induced non-targeted effects: some open questions

2015· review· en· W2155308670 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 · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBystander effectPhenomenonEngineering ethicsEpistemologyField (mathematics)PsychologySocial psychologyPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of non-targeted effects (NTEs) of radiation (genomic instability and bystander effects) has been generally accepted for >20 y; however, there is research, which was largely ignored going back to 1915 reporting these effects. Despite today's general acceptance of the phenomenon of NTE, there is little agreement about the mechanisms involved and the implications in radiation biology and radiation protection. The aim of this review was to consider some of the odd data, which have been published in the field with a view to obtaining insights or stimulating new ways of thinking about this field. By highlighting some key challenges and controversies, concerning the mechanisms and more importantly, the reason these effects exist, current ideas about the wider implications of NTEs in evolution and biology are also discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.331 · 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