EUROPEAN COUNCIL AND INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON RADON EXPOSURE RISK CONTROL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Review of international experience in creating and promoting programs for communicating the risk of radon exposure for public health in order to elaborate the appropriate approaches for our country in developing a program for communicating the risk of radon exposure. Material and methods. The scientific and practical sources from the countries of the European Region, Canada and the United States of America were used, which cover their national programs and policies for communicating the risk of radon exposure, recommended for implementation by EURATOM Directive 2013/59. Methods used - descriptive, analytical, synthetic. Results. The synthetic analysis of current sources summarizes the scientific evidence to substantiate political decisions and demonstrate the need for multilevel interventions. The key point of these policies is the need for a wider coverage of residents with information about the risk of radon exposure and how to reduce it. Efforts to improve public awareness have had some success in some countries, but it has also been found difficult to convince residents of the importance of radon control and forces them to take measures to mitigate the side effects. Conclusion. Public health policy in the area of radon risk should take into account the responsibility of the government and residents in addressing this issue.
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 | 0.035 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.011 |
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".