MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324290324 · doi:10.1097/hp.0b013e3182118f61

COMPARISON OF TWO LEG PHANTOMS CONTAINING 241AM IN BONE

2011· article· en· W2324290324 on OpenAlex
Gary H. Kramer, Barry M. Hauck, Kevin Capello, W. Rühm, Nabil El‐Faramawy, David Broggio, Didier Franck, M. A. López, J. F. Navarro, Sergei Y. Tolmachev

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomTransuranium elementNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceRadiochemistryMedicinePlutoniumChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three facilities (CIEMAT, HMGU and HML) have used their in vivo counters to compare two leg phantoms. One was commercially produced with (241)Am activity artificially added to the bone inserts. The other, the United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries' (USTUR) leg phantom, was manufactured from (241)Am-contaminated bones resulting from an intake. The comparison of the two types of leg phantoms showed that the two phantoms are not similar in their activity distributions. An error in a bone activity estimate could be quite large if the commercial leg phantom is used to estimate what is contained in the USTUR leg phantom and, consequently, a real person. As the latter phantom was created as a result of a real contamination, it is deemed to be the more representative of what would actually happen if a person were internally contaminated with (241)Am.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.283 · 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