Modeling Population Screening Process for Maximizing Throughputs
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
Following a large-scale radiation emergency, affected populations will need to be screened soon after for potential contamination (external or internal). Effective management of the available resources can help maximize the screening throughputs. This paper reports the modeling results for screening throughputs in a population screening center using a set resource, considering two major variables, the arrival rate (number of people arriving at the screening center per minute) and the contamination probability (the probability of finding a contaminated group). Both the full process (including all sub-processes in a population screening center) and the core process (including only the screening sub-processes: pre-screening, portal monitoring, and whole body counting) were simulated. As expected, for both processes, as the arrival rate increases, the screening center can get overwhelmed. Interestingly, the contamination probability becomes a significant factor for screening throughputs only when the arrival rate becomes high. The results show that following an emergency, when the arrival rate is high, much more resources will need to be deployed to the population screening center or multiple screening centers will need to be established.
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 | 0.000 | 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