Assessment of test duration effect in indoor radon measurement by Monte Carlo simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand the effect of various test durations on indoor radon measurement results in Canada, Monte Carlo simulations were performed for test durations of 1 month (30 d), 2 months (61 d), 3 months (91 d) and 6 months (183 d). For each of the specified test durations, a total of 1500 Monte Carlo simulations were performed. Each simulation was compared with the result of a 1-y measurement. On average, the radon concentration estimated from a 30-d test differed by about ±22 % from the value of a 1-y measurement. The difference reduced to about ±17 % for a 61-d test, ±14 % for a 91-d test and ±9 % for a half-year test. Health Canada's recommendation of a 3-month radon test performed during the heating season resulted in an estimated radon concentration, on average, ∼20 % higher than the value determined from a 1-y measurement. This ensures a conservative estimate of the annual average radon concentration, as there is some risk at any radon level. Therefore, to avoid an underestimation of radon exposure and to ensure appropriate levels of precision and accuracy are met, the results from this study suggest that a radon measurement duration of 3 months or longer during the heating season (from October through to April) is needed.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".