MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192683659 · doi:10.1088/1361-6498/ac1a5d

Reflections on low-dose radiation, the misconceptions, reality and moving forward

2021· article· en· W3192683659 on OpenAlexaff
M. Lips, E. C. Anderson, Tokiko Nakamura, Frank Harris, Günther Schneider, J. Zic, Charlotta E. Sanders, J Owen, J. Hondros, A de Ruvo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiological Protection · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAmerican Association of Physicists in Medicine
KeywordsLow Dose RadiationConservatismGovernment (linguistics)Radiation doseRadiation protectionEnvironmental healthBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineNuclear medicineLawCancerPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low dose radiation has been widely accepted by the radiation protection community as presenting a very low risk to human health, if any. Over-conservatism in optimisation principles and regulations have resulted in a disproportionate fear of radiation amongst the general public and government authorities alike, overlooking the great benefits nuclear science and techniques have brought to society as a whole. As such, the World Nuclear Association advocates for a recontextualisation of the radiation hazards with regards to low dose radiation, and a greater awareness as to the absence of any discernible effects associated with it.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiological ProtectionSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207