MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307306105 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncw054

INADEQUACY OF THORON DOSE CALCULATIONS FROM THORON PROGENY MEASUREMENT ALONE

2016· article· en· W2307306105 on OpenAlex
Derek Lane-Smith, Franklin Wong

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 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceIonizing radiationRadiationRadiation doseNuclear medicineAbsorbed doseRadiochemistryAtmospheric sciencesChemistryMedicineNuclear physicsPhysicsIrradiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pb atoms) and calculate the dose by using a set of conversion factors. This may be due to the measurement of progeny being simpler since it is longer lived and will be evenly spread throughout the room, whereas the thoron gas, with its short half-life, will exist only near the source and hence will not be of major concern for the majority of the room. However, concrete walls are a source of thoron, and spending prolonged amounts of time near them may lead to greatly increased radiation exposure, the degree of which is not revealed through progeny activity alone. The present paper compares the energy received from the ionising radiation of both thoron gas and thoron progeny near its source. Converting the energy dose to radiation dose is not within the scope of this paper. The results suggest a difference of an order of magnitude higher when taking into account the dose received by thoron gas.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.252 · 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