A DISCUSSION ON DIFFERENT APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING LIFETIME RISKS OF RADON-INDUCED LUNG CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifetime risks of radon induced lung cancer were assessed based on epidemiological approaches for Canadian, Swiss and Chinese populations, using the most recent vital statistic data and radon distribution characteristics available for each country. In the risk calculation, the North America residential radon risk model was used for the Canadian population, the European residential radon risk model for the Swiss population, the Chinese residential radon risk model for the Chinese population, and the EPA/BEIR-VI radon risk model for all three populations. The results were compared with the risk calculated from the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)'s exposure-to-risk conversion coefficients. In view of the fact that the ICRP coefficients were recommended for radiation protection of all populations, it was concluded that, generally speaking, lifetime absolute risks calculated with ICRP-recommended coefficients agree reasonably well with the range of radon induced lung cancer risk predicted by risk models derived from epidemiological pooling analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".