Representativeness of individual external doses estimated for one quarter of residents in the Fukushima Prefecture after the nuclear disaster: the Fukushima Health Management Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, the Fukushima Health Management Survey (FHMS) was launched. The Basic Survey, a component of FHMS, is a questionnaire used to survey residents across the Fukushima Prefecture about their behaviour in the first 4 months after the accident. The questionnaire findings are used to determine individual external doses by linking behaviour data to a computer programme with daily gamma ray dose rate maps, drawn after the accident. Through 30 June 2015, the response rate was only 27.2% (558 550 population), indicating that the findings might not be generalisable because of poor representativeness of the population. The objective of this study was to clarify if the data from the FHMS Basic Survey were representative of the entire population, by conducting a new survey to compare the external doses between non-respondents and respondents in the previous survey. A total of 5350 subjects were randomly selected from 7 local regions of Fukushima Prefecture. An interview survey was conducted with the non-respondents to the FHMS Basic Survey. A total of 990 responses were obtained from the previous non-responders by interview survey. For the regions Kempoku, Kenchu, Kennan, Aizu, Minami-Aizu, Soso, and Iwaki, differences in mean effective dose (95% confidence interval) in mSv between the non-responders and previous responders were 0.12 (0.01-0.23), -0.09 (-0.21-0.03), -0.06 (-0.18-0.07), 0.05 (-0.04-0.14), 0.01 (-0.01-0.02), 0.09 (0.01-0.17), 0.09 (0.00-0.17), respectively. The differences fall neither within the interval (-∞, -0.25) nor within the interval (0.25, ∞). These findings imply that mean effective doses between the previous and new respondents were not different, with a significantly indifferent region of 0.25 mSv according to equivalence tests. The present study indicates that the dose distribution obtained from about one-quarter of Fukushima residents represents the dose distribution for the entire Fukushima Prefecture.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".