APMP Key comparison report of reference air kerma rate for HDR <sup>192</sup> Ir brachytherapy sources (BIPM KCDB: APMP.RI(I)-K8)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main text The APMP/TCRI Dosimetry Working Group performed the APMP.RI(I)-K8 key comparison of the reference air kerma rate for high-dose-rate (HDR) 192 Ir brachytherapy sources between 2016 and 2018. Eight laboratories, including seven national metrology institutes (NMIs), took part in the comparison. Two commercial well-type chambers were used as transfer instruments and circulated among the participants. The results showed that the maximum difference between the participants and the BIPM, evaluated using the comparison data of the linking laboratories NMIJ and NRC, was less than 4%. The degrees of equivalence for the participants were calculated, so that results for the six non-linking laboratories may be included in the Key Comparison Database (KCDB). To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCRI, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".