MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321315897 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000503

Overview of the Full-scale Radiological Dispersal Device Field Trials

2016· article· en· W2321315897 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiological weaponBiological dispersalField trialField (mathematics)Scale (ratio)Environmental scienceComputer scienceMedical physicsEnvironmental resource managementMedicineGeographyEnvironmental healthCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2012, Defence Research and Development Canada, in partnership with a number of other Canadian and International organizations, led a series of three field trials designed to simulate a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD). These trials, known as the Full-Scale RDD (FSRDD) Field Trials, involved the explosive dispersal of a short-lived radioactive tracer ((140)La, t1/2 = 40.293 h). The FSRDD Field Trials required a significant effort in their planning, preparation, and execution to ensure that they were carried out in a safe, efficient manner and that the scientific goals of the trials were met. The discussion presented here details the planning and execution of the trials, outlines the relevant radiation safety aspects, provides a summary of the source term and atmospheric conditions for the three dispersal events, and provides an overview of the measurements that were made to track the plumes and deposition patterns.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.238 · 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