Responses of LiF Thermoluminescence Dosimeters to Diagnostic 60Co Teletherapy Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermoluminescence Dosimeter (TLD) is used as an ionizing radiation detector in the field of clinical radiotherapy, diagnostic radiology, personal radiation monitoring as well as in environmental radiation dosimetry. The sensitivity of all the TLDs is not the same even though the manufacturer produced them in the same batch. The response of TLD at various doses is also not always linear. In the present study fifty-seven rod shaped LiF TLDs had been irradiated by doses of 50cGy, 100cGy, 150cGy and 200cGy using 60Co teletherapy unit of Dhaka Medical College (Alcyon II, CGR, McV, France). The TLDs were placed in the grooves of a slab phantom and then covered by a 0.5cm thick plexiglass sheet. The phantom was then irradiated in the reference condition (10x10cm2 field size, 80cm SSD). After irradiation, readout of TLDs was done using a Harshaw TLD reader (Model 3500). Measurements were performed three times for each dose value and their average was taken. For convenience all fifty-seven TLDs were divided into nineteen groups. Grouping was done according to the response of the TLDs for a fixed dose value. In a particular group of TLDs, variation of the response of the dosimeters is the smallest one. The dose (cGy) response (nC) linearity curve of TLDs for each of the nineteen groups showed to be very close to unity.Bangladesh Journal of Medical Physics Vol.8 No.1 2015 14-21
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".