MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigating the TEPC radiation quality factor response for low energy accelerator based clinical applications

2003· article· en· W2335561675 on OpenAlexaff
Aslam, W. V. Prestwich, Fiona E. McNeill, A.J. Waker

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVan de Graaff generatorProportional counterEquivalent doseNeutronRadiationPhysicsNeutron sourceEnergy (signal processing)Nuclear physicsQuality (philosophy)Computational physicsMaterials scienceNuclear medicineAtomic physicsOpticsMedicineDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of a tissue equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) filled with propane based tissue equivalent gas simulating a 2 microm diameter tissue sphere has been investigated to estimate the radiation quality factor of the neutron fields used in in vivo neutron activation measurements at the McMaster University 3 MV Van de Graaff accelerator. The counter response to estimate the effective quality factor based on the definitions of Q(L) provided in ICRP 26 and 60 as a function of neutron energy has been examined experimentally using monoenergetic and continuous neutron spectra in the energy range of 35 to 600 keV. In agreement with other studies, the counter failed to provide a flat R(Q) response and showed a sharp drop below 200 keV neutron energy. Development of an algorithm to evaluate the quality factors using measured dose-mean lineal energy, yD, and comparison of the algorithm with other reported algorithms and analytical methods developed for the improvement in TEPC dose equivalent response has been reported.

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)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations33
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207