Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two new voxel phantoms, ICRP Adult Female (AF) and ICRP Adult Male (AM), have been compared with BOMAB (BOttle Mannikin ABsorber) phantoms and other voxel phantoms of similar size (NORMAN and VIP-Man) using Monte Carlo simulations to assess their counting efficiencies in a whole body counter. The results show that the ICRP phantoms, compared with NORMAN and VIP-Man, had counting efficiencies that ranged from 3% to 59% higher over the energy range 122 keV to 1,836 keV, a trend that is also exhibited by the comparable BOMAB phantoms. A comparison of all the voxel phantoms' results to those of the BOMAB phantom corresponding to reference man shows that the NORMAN and VIP-Man have mostly lower counting efficiencies, whereas the ICRP phantoms have higher counting efficiencies than the PM (Phantom Male) BOMAB phantom. This could be due to differences in the internal structure of each of the voxel phantoms. As expected, the ICRP AF (female voxel) had the highest efficiency due to being the smallest of all the phantoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".