MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252512934 · doi:10.1520/jai13157

Opportunities for Standardization of Beryllium Sampling and Analysis

2005· article· en· W4252512934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
MJ Brisson, AA Ekechukwu, Kevin Ashley, SD Jahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoidosis and Beryllium Toxicity Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationBerylliumSampling (signal processing)Materials scienceEnvironmental scienceNuclear engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceChemistryTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) published the DOE Beryllium Rule (10 CFR 850) in 1999, DOE sites have been required to measure beryllium in air filter and surface wipe samples for purposes of worker protection and for release of materials from beryllium-controlled areas. Measurements in the nanogram range on a filter or wipe are typically required. Industrial hygiene laboratories have applied methods from various analytical compendia, and a number of issues have emerged concerning sampling and analysis practices. As a result, a committee of analytical chemists, industrial hygienists, and laboratory managers was formed in November 2003 to address the issues. The committee developed a baseline questionnaire and distributed it to DOE sites and other agencies in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. The results of the questionnaire are presented in this paper. These results confirmed that a wide variety of practices was in use in the areas of sampling, sample preparation, and analysis. Additionally, although these laboratories are generally accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), there are inconsistencies in execution among accredited laboratories. As a result, there are significant opportunities for development of standard methods that could improve consistency. The current availabilities and needs for standard methods are further discussed in a companion paper.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicSarcoidosis and Beryllium Toxicity ResearchFrench-language works237,207