MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309083157 · doi:10.1186/s40557-016-0097-0

Review of domestic and international methods of measuring radon in residential buildings

2016· review· en· W2309083157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cheolmin Lee, Dajeong Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Environment
KeywordsRadonRadon exposureEnvironmental healthRadon gasEnvironmental scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radon, a source of natural background radiation, has been a subject of extensive studies as a major causative agent of lung cancer at the domestic and international levels. This study investigated and compared domestic and international methods of radon measurement. In the United States, radon is measured through primary and secondary testing, and a similar method is used in Canada. In the United Kingdom, only long-term radon measurements are taken with seasonal adjustments. In the Republic of Korea, both long-term and short-term measurements are taken with only primary testing. Through this study, standards for domestic radon measurement methods and improvement plans could be suggested.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207