So you think you laser safety program is going well, are you really sure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As with all safety issues it is easy, forget that laser hazards do not stop at one place or at one use; after all we have a program in place to cover those hazards, right. Well maybe not, the traditional laser safety program generally focuses on three groups’ research, medical and industrial users of lasers. Why? Because they are the most likely to obtain and use class 3B and 4 lasers, as these lasers where expensive to purchase and often required special utilities to operate. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case, with the availability of cheap and very powerful lasers, the laser safety officer (LSO) needs to expand their horizon’s to include non-traditional groups in the laser safety program. The LSO should expand their reach into these areas, facilities use, embedded laser use, outdoor laser use, and of course the driver behind all of this the cheap laser. When one thinks of facilities laser use, what first comes to mind are laser levels and laser sighted infrared thermometers which are generally safe when purchased from reliable manufactures, but what about laser wielding or laser paint removal, have you consider the impact these tools will have on your laser safety program? On the other hand embedded laser have been only a concern when they are disposed of after all they are in a Class 1 box with interlocks so little concern, right? Well maybe not, interlocks can fail, be defeated or not be there at all. After all the embedded will be used by researchers or trades professionals who read the manual and understand about the hazards. Look at where all those embedded lasers are going, maker spaces, libraries, or general office spaces and ask are you reaching these folks? If those areas are not enough places to look consider the great outdoors, but you say the only folks who would use a laser outdoors are researchers or concert promoters and they know that there are very specific rules to follow because we put all of that into the laser safety manual, but ask who is reading it? Did you ask your pest management group what happened to all the Canadian geese on campus, or the folks wanting to collect plant samples in the top of trees, or the group of makers who thought making a laser canon would be fun for playing tag? So what is causing this expansion of laser use? The cheap laser, do you realize that you can now purchase a 100W laser for less than $5,000.00 correction $1,000.00! Most institutions and companies will require purchase at or over $5,000.00 to be reviewed prior to authorization, but if the cost is less, there may be little or no oversite. Therefore, even if you have purchasing flagging lasers in all likelihood you will never see this kind of powerful laser buy thus you must expand your horizons to close this hole in your program.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".