MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784298282 · doi:10.1186/s12938-018-0434-3

Perspectives on setting limits for RF contact currents: a commentary

2018· review· en· W2784298282 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMedical Engineering OnLine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
FundersElectric Power Research Institute
KeywordsElectrical conductorCurrent (fluid)Contact forceElectrical contactsContact resistanceThermal contactContact areaElectrical engineeringThermal contact conductanceMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsMechanicsThermal resistanceNanotechnologyEngineeringPhysicsHeat transferComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Limits for exposure to radiofrequency (RF) contact currents are specified in the two dominant RF safety standards and guidelines developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These limits are intended to prevent RF burns when contacting RF energized objects caused by high local tissue current densities. We explain what contact currents are and review some history of the relevant limits with an emphasis on so-called "touch" contacts, i.e., contact between a person and a contact current source during touch via a very small contact area. RESULTS: Contact current limits were originally set on the basis of controlling the specific absorption rate resulting from the current flowing through regions of small conductive cross section within the body, such as the wrist or ankle. More recently, contact currents have been based on thresholds of perceived heating. In the latest standard from the IEEE developed for NATO, contact currents have been based on two research studies in which thresholds for perception of thermal warmth or thermal pain have been measured. Importantly, these studies maximized conductive contact between the subject and the contact current source. This factor was found to dominate the response to heating wherein high resistance contact, such as from dry skin, can result in local heating many times that from a highly conductive contact. Other factors such as electrode size and shape, frequency of the current and the physical force associated with contact are found to introduce uncertainty in threshold values when comparing data across multiple studies. CONCLUSIONS: Relying on studies in which the contact current is minimized for a given threshold does not result in conservative protection limits. Future efforts to develop limits on contact currents should include consideration of (1) the basis for the limits (perception, pain, tissue damage); (2) understanding of the practical conditions of real world exposure for contact currents such as contact resistance, size and shape of the contact electrode and applied force at the point of contact; (3) consistency of how contact currents are applied in research studies across different researchers; (4) effects of frequency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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