When a duck is not a duck; a new interdisciplinary synthesis for environmental radiation protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This consensus paper presents the results of a workshop held in Essen, Germany in September 2017, called to examine critically the current approach to radiological environmental protection. The meeting brought together participants from the field of low dose radiobiology and those working in radioecology. Both groups have a common aim of identifying radiation exposures and protecting populations and individuals from harmful effects of ionising radiation exposure, but rarely work closely together. A key question in radiobiology is to understand mechanisms triggered by low doses or dose rates, leading to adverse outcomes of individuals while in radioecology a key objective is to recognise when harm is occurring at the level of the ecosystem. The discussion provided a total of six strategic recommendations which would help to address these questions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".