Aerial Mobile Radiation Survey Following Detonation of a Radiological Dispersal Device
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of experiments was conducted in 2012 at the Defence Research and Development Canada's Suffield Research Centre in Alberta, Canada, during which three radiological dispersal devices were detonated. The detonations released radioactive (140)La into the air, which was then carried by winds and detectable over distances of up to 2 km. The Nuclear Emergency Response group of Natural Resources Canada conducted airborne radiometric surveys shortly following the explosions to map the pattern of radioactivity deposited on the ground. The survey instrument suite was based on large volume NaI(Tl) scintillation gamma radiation detectors, which were situated in a basket mounted exterior to the helicopter and oriented end-to-end to maximize the sensitivity. A standard geophysical data treatment was used to subtract backgrounds and to correct the data to produce counts due to (140)La at the nominal altitude. Sensitivity conversion factors obtained from Monte Carlo simulations were then applied to express the measurements in terms of surface activity concentration in kBq m(-2). Integrated over the survey area, the results indicate that only 20 to 25% of the bomb's original inventory of radioactive material is deposited within a 1.5-km radius of ground zero. These results can be accommodated with a simple model for the RDD behavior and atmospheric dispersion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it