Sci‐Fri AM: Quality, Safety, and Professional Issues 03: The Increasing Costs of Shielding Diagnostic CT Scanners in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In Ontario, shielding for all X‐ray machines, including CT scanners, must be evaluated according to Safety Code 20A (Health Canada, 1983) which is based on NCRP‐49 (NCRP, 1976). NCRP‐147 (NCRP, 2004) is the international standard for shielding calculations of CT scanners and is also referenced in Safety Code 35 (Health Canada, 2008) which, was published to supersede SC20A. The goal of this work is to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of NCRP‐147 for CT scanner shielding. Methods: CT scanner shielding calculations are performed using SC20A and NCRP‐147: A room located on the third floor with the nearest building 75m away A room with high occupancy uncontrolled adjacent spaces Two side by side rooms on the main floor Results: 1. SC20A: The exterior windows required 0.1mm of Pb to protect the public who may occupy the building at 75m. 1. NCRP‐147: No additional shielding required. 2. SC20A: Two walls adjacent to high occupancy uncontrolled space required an additional 1.58mm Pb. 2. NCRP‐147: No additional shielding required. 3. SC20A: The entire floor and ceiling slabs in both rooms required an additional 0.79mm Pb. In addition, 0.79mm Pb was added to the walls from the ceiling to overlap the existing Pb shielding in the walls. 3. NCRP‐147: No additional shielding required. Conclusion: The application of NCRP Report No. 147 affords the required protection to staff and the public, in the true spirit of the ALARA principle, taking into account relevant social and economic factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".