National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center Dispersion Modeling of the Full-scale Radiological Dispersal Device (FSRDD) Field Trials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) model simulations are compared to measured data from the Full-Scale Radiological Dispersal Device (FSRDD) field trials. The series of explosive radiological dispersal device (RDD) experiments was conducted in 2012 by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and collaborating organizations. During the trials, a wealth of data was collected, including a variety of deposition and air concentration measurements. The experiments were conducted with one of the stated goals being to provide measurements to atmospheric dispersion modelers. These measurements can be used to facilitate important model validation studies. For this study, meteorological observations recorded during the tests are input to the diagnostic meteorological model, ADAPT, which provides 3-D, time-varying mean wind and turbulence fields to the LODI dispersion model. LODI concentration and deposition results are compared to the measured data, and the sensitivity of the model results to changes in input conditions (such as the particle activity size distribution of the source) and model physics (such as the rise of the buoyant cloud of explosive products) is explored. The NARAC simulations predicted the experimentally measured deposition results reasonably well considering the complexity of the release. Changes to the activity size distribution of the modeled particles can improve the agreement of the model results to measurement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it