MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981655762 · doi:10.4095/296420

Predicting geographic variations of indoor radon potential across southwestern Ontario using geoscience data

2015· report· en· W2981655762 on OpenAlexaffabout
K L Ford, B J A Harvey, Jeffrey Whyte, J Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadonEnvironmental scienceEarth scienceGeologyPhysical geographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating indoor radon variations using regional geoscience data for southwestern Ontario generally shows a progressive and clearly positive association. Uranium concentrations measured by airborne gamma ray spectrometry show the strongest positive association with elevated indoor radon concentrations followed by estimated radon potential derived from regional bedrock geology. Comparisons between relative permeability derived from regional surficial geology and indoor radon concentrations were inconclusive. Closer examination suggests that this may not always be the case and that permeability is still an important factor at local scales. The positive associations between selected regional geoscience datasets, in particular uranium concentrations measured by airborne gamma ray spectrometry and elevated indoor radon concentrations, illustrates their use as effective predictive tools for the identification of areas with increased potential for overexposure to indoor radon, including areas without residential development. These positive associations can be used to support targeted or follow-up radon studies and for future land-use planning decisions.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.404
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.083 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207