A discussion on the benefits of radiological food guidelines under normal conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most existing guidelines to control radionuclides in commercial food were established for nuclear emergency or post-emergency situations. They provide guideline levels only for those radionuclides representative of a nuclear or radiological emergency. Under normal conditions, naturally occurring radionuclides in food could be the main concern for radiological protection and food safety. From the perspective of radiological protection and food safety, guidelines to control radionuclides in foodstuffs are needed in non-emergency situations. The WHO's drinking water guidelines are a good example of radiological guidelines for non-emergency situations which address man-made radionuclides as well as naturally occurring radionuclides. Food safety should meet the same or comparable standards as the standards for drinking water quality. Benefits of having radiological guidelines for commercial food, some practical considerations and proposed criteria to set such guidelines for three food categories are discussed here.
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 | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".