MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Absorption and Retention of Polonium-210 from Caribou Meat

2001· article· en· W2330250335 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. Thomas, I.M. Fisenne, D Chorney, A. S. Baweja, B. L. Tracy

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoloniumIngestionUrineExcretionVolunteerAbsorption (acoustics)Animal scienceFecesMedicinePhysiologyChemistryBiologyInternal medicineRadiochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gastrointestinal (GI) absorption factors and the biological retention times for polonium were determined for a group of 14 volunteers--seven men and seven women--from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Each volunteer consumed 2.0 kg of caribou meat containing known amounts of naturally occurring 210Po. Urine and faecal samples were collected for up to 65 days after meat consumption and analysed for 210Po. The average GI absorption factor for the 14 volunteers was 56 +/- 4% (range = 31-71%), not significantly different from the ICRP value of 50%. About 3% of absorbed polonium underwent prompt excretion by the urinary pathway. The remainder was retained by the body with a half-time >100 days, compared to the ICRP value of 50 days. The effect of these findings increases the dose estimate for ingestion of 210Po in food by a factor of 1.5 to 3.5. Thus, background doses to people consuming caribou and reindeer may be higher than previously thought.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207