MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289278937 · doi:10.13034/jsst.v8i1.43

Can Smartphones Measure Radiation Exposures?

2015· article· en· W2289278937 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Science and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonizing radiationRadiationCalibrationMeasure (data warehouse)PhysicsDetectorOpticsNuclear medicineComputer graphics (images)Medical physicsComputer scienceIrradiationMedicineNuclear physicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, is potentially harmful to humans. Ionizing radiation can be detected by radiation detectors, which are not easily available to the public. Thus, the feasibility of using smartphones to detect and measure X-ray exposures was investigated in this work. Two sets of experiments were conducted using an Apple iPhone 4 smartphone. For one experiment, the smartphone was used as an X-ray source, while the second experiment tested the use of the iPhone as an exposure meter. Using the iPhone 4, it was found that when videos were taken during X-ray exposures, white tracks appeared in the videos, which indicated a radiation absorption event. By counting the total number of tracks in the videos (using image processing software), X-ray exposures could be determined using a calibration factor obtained from the first set of experiments. It was found that the calibration factor was strongly dependent on the video settings, but weakly dependent on the incident angle of X-rays on the phone as long as the incident angle was within ±45 degrees from the normal incidence. It was observed that, as an exposure meter, the iPhone 4 was ±20% accurate compared to a standard detector used by hospitals. The results of this work suggest that it is feasible to use an iPhone 4 to measure radiation exposures.Les rayonnements ionisants comme les rayons X, peuvent être nuisible sans être sensiblement distingués par des humains. La faisabilité de l’utilisation des smartphones qui peuvent détecter des rayons X, et ce, en mesurant l’exposition à de tels rayons faisait l’objet de cet étude. Deux séries d’expériences ont été fait avec un iPhone4. Une série portait sur le calibrage de l’iPhone avec une source de rayon X. L’autre série portait sur l’utilisation de l’iPhone comme dispositif de photométrie. L’expérience a révélé que lors de la prise de vidéo pendant une exposition aux rayons X, des brillantes traces blanches se sont apparues dans les vidéos dont chacune a indiqué un événement d’absorption de radiation. En comptant le nombre total de traces dans les vidéos (utilisant un logiciel de traitement d’image), des expositions radiographiques pourraient être déterminées en utilisant un facteur de calibrage obtenu de la première série d’expériences. Les paramètres de vidéo ont eu une importante influence sur le facteur de calibrage, tandis que l’influence de l’angle d’incident de radiographies au téléphone leur signifiait moins tant que l’angle d’incident était d’environ ±45 degrés de l’incidence normale. L’iPhone comme dispositif de photométrie révélait être d’environ ±20 % précis par rapport à un détecteur standard utilisé dans des hôpitaux.

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)0.001
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 score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.260 · 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