MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313023433 · doi:10.1097/hp.0b013e31829651d3

Investigation Of Photon Shielding Property Changes in Curing High Density Concrete

2013· article· en· W2313023433 on OpenAlexafffund
M Marsh, Christopher Peters, N Rawluk, L J Schreiner

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElectromagnetic shieldingAttenuationMaterials scienceBeam (structure)RadiationRadiation shieldingComposite materialOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High density concrete is usually used for radiation shielding around radiotherapy treatment rooms. Because the concrete is specified differently at the design, construction, and verification stages, the relationship between the intended performance and the actual performance of the shielding material might not be entirely clear. In this study, cylindrical samples of high density shielding concrete were taken as each section of a new radiotherapy bunker was poured. The shielding performance of each sample [measured by beam attenuation and tenth-value layers (TVL)] was evaluated for 15 MV and 6 MV x-ray beams and for the 1.25 MeV monoenergetic gamma beam from a Co source. Transmission curves to 3 TVL were mapped for a representative sample. The samples were also imaged and analyzed using Co Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CoCBCT). Results indicate no significant change in the TVL of high density concrete samples as they cure. The minor fluctuations in shielding properties observed are explained by the heterogeneous structure of the samples as indicated in the CoCBCT images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207