MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DRDC Ottawa Working Standard for Biological Dosimetry

2005· article· en· W3025821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamika M. Segura, Louise Prud'homme-Lalonde, Erika Thorleifson, S. Lachapelle, Dana Mullins, Sami S. Qutob, Diana Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsQuality assuranceDosimetryMedical physicsChromosome aberrationAccreditationCalibrationRadiation protectionComputer scienceNuclear medicineMedicineService (business)StatisticsMathematicsBusinessBiologyChromosomeMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Standard provides quality assurance, quality control, and evaluation of the performance criteria for the purpose of accreditation of the Radiation Biology laboratory at Defence Research & Development Canada - Ottawa (DRDC Ottawa) using biological dosimetry to predict radiation exposure doses. The International Standard (ISO 19238) and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) Technical Report Series No. 405 are used as guiding documents in preparation of this working document specific to the DRDC Ottawa Radiation Biology Laboratory. This Standard addresses: 1. The confidentiality of personal information, for the customer and the service laboratory; 2. The laboratory safety requirements; 3. The calibration sources and calibration dose ranges useful for establishing the reference dose-effect curves allowing the dose estimation from chromosome aberration frequency, and the minimum detection levels; 4. Transportation criteria for shipping of test samples to the laboratory; 5. Preparation of samples for analysis; 6. The scoring procedure for unstable chromosome aberrations used for biological dosimetry; 7. The criteria for converting a measured aberration frequency into an estimate of absorbed dose; 8. The reporting of results; 9. The quality assurance and quality control plan for the laboratory; and 10. Informative annexes containing examples of a questionnaire, instructions for customers, a data sheet for recording aberrations, a sample report and other supportive documents.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0110.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.039

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207