MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328294207 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000365

The Sensitivity of Atmospheric Dispersion Calculations in Near-field Applications

2016· article· en· W2328294207 on OpenAlexaffabout
Luke Lebel, Pierre Bourgouin, Sohan Chouhan, Nils Ek, Volodymyr Korolevych, Alain Malo, Dov Bensimon, Lorne Erhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtmospheric dispersion modelingEnvironmental scienceSensitivity (control systems)Dispersion (optics)Ground levelDeposition (geology)Scale (ratio)Field (mathematics)MeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesNuclear engineeringRemote sensingPhysicsOpticsGeologyAir pollutionEngineeringChemistryMathematicsGeomorphologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three radiological dispersal devices were detonated in 2012 under controlled conditions at Defence Research and Development Canada's Experimental Proving Grounds in Suffield, Alberta. Each device comprised a 35-GBq source of (140)La. The dataset obtained is used in this study to assess the MLCD, ADDAM, and RIMPUFF atmospheric dispersion models. As part one of a two-part study, this paper focuses on examining the capabilities of the above three models and evaluating how well their predictions of air concentration and ground deposition match observations from the full-scale RDD experiments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207