MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412052693 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000449

39th Lauriston S. Taylor Lecture

2015· article· en· W2412052693 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith F. Eckerman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOak Ridge National LaboratoryRadiation protectionDosimetryStandardizationRadiological weaponCommissionHealth physicsLibrary scienceNuclear medicinePolitical scienceMedical physicsMedicineLawPhysicsNuclear physicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the early days of the Manhattan Engineer District, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has served to advance the dosimetry models used to set protection standards for radionuclides taken into the body. Throughout the years, this effort benefited significantly from ORNL staff's active participation in national and international scientific bodies. The first such interaction was in 1946 with the National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP), chaired by L.S. Taylor, which led to the 1949 to 1953 series of tripartite conferences of experts from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These conferences addressed the need for standardization of dosimetry models and led to the establishment of an anatomic and physiologic model called "Standard Man," a precursor of the reference worker defined in Publication 23 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Standard Man was used in setting the maximum permissible concentrations in air and water published in NBS Handbook 52 and subsequent reports by NCRP and ICRP. K.Z. Morgan, then director of the Health Physics Division at ORNL, participated in the tripartite conferences and subsequently established ORNL as a modeling and computational resource for development of radiation protection standards. ORNL's role expanded with participation in the work of the Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) Committee of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Results of interactions with the MIRD Committee are evident in the radiation protection guidance for internal emitters in ICRP Publication 30. The annual limit on intake and derived air concentration values tabulated in Publication 30 were computed by an ORNL-based task group of ICRP Committee 2. A few years after the appearance of Publication 30, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident made clear the need to develop standard dosimetry models for pre-adult ages as members of the public. In the late 1980s, ICRP began an effort to extend its reference worker concept to a reference family and develop dosimetric models for application to intake of radionuclides by members of the public. However, the modeling approach underlying the ICRP Publication 30 computational framework was not amenable to age and gender considerations. With support of U.S. federal agencies, ORNL had begun efforts in the early 1980s to develop age- and gender-specific dosimetric models, including physiologically informed biokinetic models and age-specific dosimetric phantoms. ORNL's models and methods became the starting point for the ICRP's series of reports on dose coefficients for radionuclide intake by the public. Currently ICRP Committee 2 is overseeing development of a second generation of post-Chernobyl models and methods, with updates of Publications 30 and 68 soon to appear and new models for members of the public in preparation. The focus of this Lauriston S. Taylor Lecture is to chronicle advancements in the dosimetry of internal emitters with some discussion of models and methods but with due deference to decisions within scientific bodies and stimulated by radiological events.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207