Urban working groups in the IAEA’s model testing programmes: overview from the MODARIA I and MODARIA II programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IAEA's model testing programmes have included a series of Working Groups concerned with modelling radioactive contamination in urban environments. These have included the Urban Working Group of Validation of Environmental Model Predictions (1988-1994), the Urban Remediation Working Group of Environmental Modelling for Radiation Safety (EMRAS) (2003-2007), the Urban Areas Working Group of EMRAS II (2009-2011), the Urban Environments Working Group of (Modelling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments) MODARIA I (2013-2015), and most recently, the Urban Exposures Working Group of MODARIA II (2016-2019). The overarching objective of these Working Groups has been to test and improve the capabilities of computer models used to assess radioactive contamination in urban environments, including dispersion and deposition processes, short-term and long-term redistribution of contaminants following deposition events, and the effectiveness of various countermeasures and other protective actions, including remedial actions, in reducing contamination levels, human exposures, and doses to humans. This paper describes the exercises conducted during the MODARIA I and MODARIA II programmes. These exercises have included short-range and mid-range atmospheric dispersion exercises based on data from field tests or tracer studies, hypothetical urban dispersion exercises, and an exercise based on data collected after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Improvement of model capabilities will lead to improvements in assessing various contamination scenarios (real or hypothetical), and in turn, to improved decision-making and communication with the public following a nuclear or radiological emergency.
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 | 0.050 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".