MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332449854 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncr101

Prediction of the variation in risks from exposure to radon at home or at work

2011· article· en· W2332449854 on OpenAlex
Douglas B. Chambers, R.H. Stager

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

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadonEnvironmental healthConversion factorRisk assessmentMedicineRadon exposureRisk factorEstimationAbsolute risk reductionEnvironmental scienceNuclear medicineStatisticsToxicologyPopulationMathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the basis of a review of recent epidemiology, the ICRP recently issued a statement outlining a new approach to radon. The ICRP indicates that the Publication 65 dose conversion convention will be replaced using the dosimetric approach currently used for other radionuclides. Moreover, the ICRP indicates that the dose conversion factor is expected to increase by about a factor of 2. This paper independently examines the risks associated with exposure to radon and decay products through estimation of lifetime excess absolute risks per WLM for a variety of epidemiological risk projection models and baseline cancer and mortality rates. This paper suggests that current ICRP dosimetric models do not reflect the effect of smoking and suggest that basic risk estimates and dose conversion factors be based on risks to non-smoking populations with recognition that lifestyle choices, especially smoking, have a large effect on the risk from exposure to radon.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.157 · 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