MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754002070 · doi:10.1002/mp.12582

Technical Note: On the use of cylindrical ionization chambers for electron beam reference dosimetry

2017· article· en· W2754002070 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Muir, M McEwen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Physical Laboratory
KeywordsDosimetryIonization chamberIonizationImaging phantomElectronCathode rayPhysicsAtomic physicsBeam (structure)Range (aeronautics)IonOpticsComputational physicsMaterials scienceNuclear physicsNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To investigate the use of cylindrical chambers for electron beam dosimetry independent of energy by studying the variability of relative ion chamber perturbation corrections, one of the main concerns for electron beam dosimetry with cylindrical chambers. Methods Measurements are made with sets of cylindrical and plane‐parallel reference‐class chambers as a function of depth in water in 8 MeV and 18 MeV electron beams. The ratio of chamber readings for similar chambers is normalized in a high‐energy electron beam and can be thought of as relative perturbation corrections. Data are plotted as a function of mean electron energy at depth for a range of depths close to the phantom surface to R80, the depth at which the ionization falls to 80% of its maximum value. Additional, similar measurements are made in a Virtual Water® phantom with cylindrical chambers at the reference depth in a 4 MeV electron beam. Results The variability of relative ion chamber perturbation corrections for nominally identical cylindrical Farmer‐type chambers is found to be less than 0.4%, no worse than plane‐parallel chambers with similar specifications. Conclusions This work discusses several issues related to the use of plane‐parallel ion chambers and suggests that reference‐class cylindrical chambers may be appropriate for reference dosimetry of all electron beams. This would simplify the reference dosimetry procedure and improve accuracy of beam calibration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207