MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611429334 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n7p161

Shielding Evaluation of Diagnostic X-Ray Rooms in Khartoum State

2017· article· en· W2611429334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suhaib Alameen, Siddig Khalid, Wadah Ali, Mamdouh Y. Osman

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic shieldingLimitingDosimeterX-rayRadiation protectionNuclear medicineDose rateMedicineMedical physicsEnvironmental scienceNuclear engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsDosimetryNuclear physicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the shielding of some conventional x-ray rooms in Khartoum state. This study is based on the shielding calculations stated in the NCRP report number 49. This is the first time in Sudan to evaluate the shielding of diagnostic x-ray rooms based on this report.The total number of conventional x- ray rooms included in this study is 9 and the main parameters recorded during the evaluation are the KVp, mAs, and distance from the x-ray source to the measuring points. The dose rate at some selected points both inside and outside each x-ray room have been recorded using two dosimeters.The result of the evaluation revealed that 75% of the tested controlled area and 71.4% of the uncontrolled areas passed the test and do comply with the recommended limiting doses. However, only one room was found to be well shielded for both controlled and uncontrolled areas. The maximum allowed dose rate in controlled and uncontrolled areas was taken equal to 5 mSv/year & 1 mSv/year respectively and as recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Calculations of the required shielding have been made for those areas which have not passed the tests and for lead and concrete.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207