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 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

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.394
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