A Comparative Study of Radon Levels in Federal Buildings and Residential Homes in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shortly after revision of the Canadian radon guideline from 800 to 200 Bq m, Health Canada established the Federal Building Testing Program in 2007 to demonstrate federal leadership in raising awareness about radon risk and the need for testing. By the end of 2017, more than 7,600 federal workplaces had been tested for radon. As is the case in all radon surveys, radon levels vary widely; federal building results ranged from below the detection limit to more than 2,500 Bq m in a few rooms of a few buildings. Weighted by the population of federal public servants across Canada, the average radon distribution in federal workplaces has a geometric mean of 22.0 Bq m with a geometric standard deviation of 2.3. The population-weighted arithmetic mean is 34.3 Bq m, significantly lower than the population-weighted average radon concentration of 72.9 Bq m in residential homes across Canada. On average, 2% of federal workplaces have radon concentrations above 200 Bq m, which is also significantly lower than the 7% of residential homes that tested above 200 Bq m. This comparative study demonstrated clearly that radon education and awareness in Canada should focus more on residential testing and remediation actions to effectively reduce the burden of radon-induced lung cancer.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".