SIM.RI(I)-K3 comparison of calibration coefficients at radiotherapy level for orthovoltage x-ray beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air-kerma calibration coefficients were compared at the radiotherapy level for orthovoltage x ray beams in the SIM.RI(I)-K3 comparison for members of the Sistema Interamericano de Metrología (SIM). Five SIM laboratories participated in the comparison: NIST, NRC, ININ, CNEA and LNMRI, the NIST being the pilot laboratory. Results from the comparison are linked to the BIPM.RI(I)-K3 key comparison reference value through the NIST-BIPM comparison made in 2003 and will meet requirements of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) to support several CMCs (calibration and measurement capability claims) of the participants. The comparison began in October of 2007 and the measurements were completed in September 2008. The results reveal the degree to which the participating calibration facility can demonstrate proficiency in transferring air-kerma calibrations under the conditions of the said facility at the time of the measurements. The evaluation of the degrees of equivalence was performed as described in the comparison protocol. The comparison of the calibration coefficients for the four chambers is based on the average ratios of the calibration coefficients measured at the NIST and at each participating laboratory. Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCRI, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".