MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171014328 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n4p234

Effective Dose Radon 222 of the Tap Water in Children and Adults People; Minab City, Iran

2015· article· en· W2171014328 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yadolah Fakhri, Morteza Kargosha, Ghazaleh Langarizadeh, Yahya Zandsalimi, Leila Rasouli Amirhajeloo, Mahboobeh Moradi, Bigard Moradi, Maryam Mirzaei

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTap waterRadonEnvironmental healthMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(222)Rn is a radioactive, odorless, and colorless element which has a half-life of 3.83 days. One of (222)Rn main resources are Groundwater (wells, springs, etc.). Hence, the use of groundwater with high concentration of (222)Rn can increase the risk of lung and stomach cancers. Concentration of (222)Rn in tap water of Minab city in two temperatures 5 and 15 ºC was measured by radon meter model RTM1668-2. The effective dose was calculated by equations proposed by UNSCEAR. Geometric mean concentration of (222)Rn in drinking water was found to be 0.78±0.06 and 0.46±0.04 Bq/l at 5 and 15 ̊C (p value<0.05), respectively. The effective doses were 0.006 and 0.003 mSv/y for adults, and 0.011 and 0.007 mSv/y for the children, respectively (p value<0.05). Besides, the effective dose for adult through inhaling (222)Rn at 5 and 15 ̊C were estimated 0.0021 and 0.0012mSv/y, respectively. Geometric mean concentration in (222)Rn drinking water and effective dose received from drinking water and inhalation of (222)Rn is lower than WHO and EPA standard limits. Increasing temperature of drinking water will decrease the effective dose received. Annual Effective dose received from inhalation and consumption of (222)Rn in drinking water in children is more than 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207