Bibliographic record
Abstract
IC3Ddose 2021 - 11th International Conference on 3D and Advanced Dosimetry The 11th edition of the International Conference on Three Dimensional (3D) and Advanced Dosimetry, IC3Ddose, was scheduled to meet in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada in 2020. The conference, initiated originally in Kentucky in 1999 and then continued roughly every two years thereafter in venues across the globe, was set for a Canadian venue. By late February 2020 the organizers had received over 60 submissions for proffered presentations to the conference and had recruited a strong cohort of 16 invited speakers. The submissions covered topics from film dosimetry, 3D dosimetry with chemical systems, EPID dosimetry, scintillation and Cherenkov based techniques, challenges of clinical dose delivery validation with dynamic techniques and small radiation fields, end-to-end QA, and more. All was ready for a very successful meeting in June 2020, and then Covid-19 stopped all life as usual in March of that year. In late 2020 it became clear that it would not be possible to just postpone the 2020 meeting to 2021, so it was decided to turn IC3Ddose021 into a virtual meeting. This enabled those who had submitted work for the conference to still present their research albeit remotely in a meeting from May 10th to 13th, 2021. Some of the original submissions were withdrawn because they had been already published in the interim or because authors could not attend the meeting. Thirty-eight papers were presented in 21 oral presentations and 17 posters over the four days of IC3Ddose21. The sessions were scheduled to accommodate 93 participants from 13 countries across multiple time-zones. The oral sessions over the meetings first three days were given over the Zoom remote platform that everyone had become proficient with in the last year. To replicate the relaxed personal interactions long fostered in IC3Ddose, interactive sessions after each day’s oral presentation with poster viewing, vendor exhibits and informal gathering rooms for open discussion were moved to an interactive virtual platform called Spatial. Chat. List of International Scientific Committee, Local Organizing Committee are available in this pdf.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.607 | 0.478 |
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".