Poster ‐ 28: Shielding of X‐ray Rooms in Ontario in the Absence of Best Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster will be strictly based on the Healing Arts Radiation Protection (HARP) Act, Regulation 543 under this Act (X‐ray Safety Code), and personal communication the presenting author has had. In Ontario, the process of approval of an X‐ray machine installation by the Director of the X‐ray Inspection Service (XRIS) follows a certain protocol. Initially, the applicant submits a series of forms, including recommended shielding amounts, in order to satisfy the law. This documentation is then transferred to a third‐party vendor (i.e. a professional engineer – P. Eng.) outsourced by the Ministry of Health and Long‐term Care (MOHLTC). The P.Eng. then evaluates the submitted documentation for appropriate fulfillment of the HARP Act and Reg. 543 requirements. If the P.Eng.'s evaluation of the documentation is to their satisfaction, the XRIS is then notified. Finally, the Director will then issue a letter of approval to install the equipment at the facility. The methodology required to be used by the P.Eng. in order to determine the required amounts of protective barriers, and recommended to be used by the applicant, is contained within Safety Code 20A. However, Safety Code 35 has replaced the obsolete Safety Code 20A document and employs best practices in shielding design. This talk will focus further on specific intentions and limitations of Safety Code 20A. Furthermore, this talk will discuss the definition of the “practice of professional engineering” in Ontario. COMP members who are involved in shielding design are strongly encouraged to attend.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.013 |
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".