MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769400943 · doi:10.1002/bem.22094

Assessment of exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields from smart utility meters in GB; part II) numerical assessment of induced SAR within the human body

2017· article· en· W2769400943 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Muhammad Rafaqat Ali Qureshi, Yasir Alfadhl, Xiaodong Chen, Azadeh Peyman, Myron Maslanyj, Simon Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueBioelectromagnetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaPublic Health England
KeywordsBioelectromagneticsSpecific absorption rateNon-ionizing radiationElectromagnetic fieldElectromagnetic radiationAbsorption (acoustics)Electric fieldAcousticsEnvironmental sciencePhysicsComputational physicsTelecommunicationsOpticsAntenna (radio)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human body exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic waves emitted from smart meters was assessed using various exposure configurations. Specific energy absorption rate distributions were determined using three anatomically realistic human models. Each model was assigned with age‐ and frequency‐dependent dielectric properties representing a collection of age groups. Generalized exposure conditions involving standing and sleeping postures were assessed for a home area network operating at 868 and 2,450 MHz. The smart meter antenna was fed with 1 W power input which is an overestimation of what real devices typically emit (15 mW max limit). The highest observed whole body specific energy absorption rate value was 1.87 mW kg−1, within the child model at a distance of 15 cm from a 2,450 MHz device. The higher values were attributed to differences in dimension and dielectric properties within the model. Specific absorption rate (SAR) values were also estimated based on power density levels derived from electric field strength measurements made at various distances from smart meter devices. All the calculated SAR values were found to be very small in comparison to International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection limits for public exposure. Bioelectromagnetics. 39:200–216, 2018. © 2017 The Authors. Bioelectromagnetics Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Bioelectromagnetics Society.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioelectromagneticsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207