MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888150945 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000909

A Review of Indoor and Outdoor Radon Equilibrium Factors—part I: 222Rn

2018· review· en· W2888150945 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Chen, Naomi H. Harley

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadonRadon gasRadon exposureEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Materials sciencePhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radon exposure levels are given in terms of radon gas concentration in the air. However, in the calculation of radon dose to the lung, the radon equilibrium equivalent concentration is used. The measured equilibrium factor times the measured radon gas concentration estimates the equilibrium equivalent concentration. Therefore, equilibrium factor is an important factor in radon dose calculations. A review of published measurements of equilibrium factors shows a range of values reported in studies from more than 13 countries and regions measured in indoor residential, indoor public, and outdoor environments. Values for Rn are reported and discussed here as the second of a two-part series, with special attention paid to results from India and China, where measured equilibrium factors are reported for hundreds and thousands of households, respectively. The wide range of measured equilibrium factors suggests that location-specific values measured in the typical breathing zone are more appropriate than a worldwide average value in the calculation of lung bronchial dose.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.394
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207