MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981725635 · doi:10.4095/296590

AMS / NRCan joint survey report, aerial campaign, Nevada National Security Site, January 20-24, 2014

2015· report· en· W2981725635 on OpenAlexaffabout
Piotr Wasiolek, Jez Stampahar, Rusty Malchow, Tom Stampahar, Mike Lukens, H. Seywerd, L.E. Sinclair, R Fortin, B J A Harvey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint (building)Aerial surveyRadiological weaponHomeland securityGeographyEnvironmental scienceCartographyEngineeringArchaeologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2014 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Aerial Measuring System (AMS) and the Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Nuclear Emergency Response project conducted a series of joint surveys at a number of locations in Nevada including the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). The goal of this project was to compare the responses of the two agencies' aerial radiation detection systems and data analysis techniques. This test included varied radioactive surface contamination levels and isotopic composition experienced at the NNSS and the differing data processing techniques utilized by the respective teams. Because both teams used the commercial aerial radiation detection systems from Radiation Solutions, Inc., the main focus of the campaign was to investigate the data acquisition techniques, data analysis, and ground-truth verification. The NRCan system consisted of four 4" x 4" x 16" NaI(Tl) scintillator crystals of which two were externally mounted in a modified commercial cargo basket certified for the Eurocopter AS350; the NNSA AMS system consisted of twelve 2" x 4" x 16" NaI(Tl) crystals in externally mounted dedicated pods. For NRCan, the joint survey provided an opportunity to characterize their system's response to extended sources of various fission products at the NNSS. Since both systems play an important role in their respective countries' national framework of radiological emergency response and are subject to multiple mutual cooperation agreements, it was important for each country to obtain more thorough knowledge of how they would employ these important assets and define the roles that they would each play in an actual response.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Measurement and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207