MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764065307 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncx204

A REVIEW OF NATURAL RADIONUCLIDES IN CANADIAN DRINKING WATER (1975–16)

2017· review· en· W2764065307 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadionuclideEnvironmental scienceUraniumWater qualityPopulationEnvironmental healthNatural uraniumUranium mineGeographyHydrology (agriculture)MedicineEcologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical results of natural radioactivity in drinking water were reviewed for a total of 21 communities across Canada from 1975 to 2016. Analyses for 226Ra, 210Pb and total uranium were carried out on monthly composite samples of drinking water from selected Canadian municipalities. Generally speaking, levels of 226Ra, 210Pb and total uranium were found to be low compared to national and international standards for drinking water quality. Because levels were low, federal monitoring programs were discontinued in most communities in 1986 except for Regina, Elliot Lake and Port Hope. The population-weighted average levels for these three communities, using data from the most recent 5 years, are <1 mBq/L for 226Ra, <5 mBq/L for 210Pb and <0.4 μg/L for total uranium. The average effective dose resulting from drinking water intake at these levels would be <4.3 μSv per year.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.286 · 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