MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508330189 · doi:10.1118/1.4961863

Sci‐Sat AM: Radiation Dosimetry and Practical Therapy Solutions ‐ 09: Stability of a water calorimetry system as a primary standard for absorbed dose to water

2016· article· en· W2508330189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. D. Cojocaru, Bryan Mui, M McEwen, C. K. Ross, Norman V. Klassen, D Marchington

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbsorbed doseDosimetryDosimeterThermistorCalorimetryMaterials sciencePrimary standardRadiationIonizing radiationCalorimeter (particle physics)IrradiationRadiochemistryNuclear engineeringNuclear medicineChemistryPhysicsCalibrationNuclear physicsOpticsThermodynamicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate the stability of a water calorimetry system as a primary standard for absorbed dose to water using measurements performed in cobalt‐60 and high‐energy linac photon beams over a span of more than a decade. Methods: Calorimetry measures adsorbed dose directly by recording the amount of heat created when ionizing radiation passes through matter. The radiation‐induced temperature rise was measured using two thermistors calibrated against the NRC temperature primary standard, using an AC bridge with lock‐in amplifier for precise measurement. The calorimeter system was operated under thermal equilibrium at 4 °C (to eliminate convection) with drifts in water temperature less than 0.1 mK/min. Seven water vessels of various designs were used to make repeated measurements over the course of 17 years. Results: The standard uncertainty achieved for a set of ten calorimeter measurements (4 Gy delivered) was generally well below 0.15 % while the variation between multiple sets for a given vessel was consistent with this value. The long‐term stability of the system combined with inter‐vessel variations indicated that there was good control of the radiochemistry (chemical heat defect). Conclusions: The measurements performed over a period of several years showed that the combined water calorimeters showed stability at +/− 0.25 % level. Thus, rather than relying on a particular vessel as an artifact one can realize the Gray through the more generalized method of combining a glass vessel, high‐purity water and thermistor probes. This provides increased robustness in the dissemination of absorbed dose to Canadian users.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207