MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281551101 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000001581

Analysis of ICNIRP 2020 Basic Restrictions for Localized Radiofrequency Exposure in the Frequency Range above 6 GHz

2022· article· en· W4281551101 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Lemay, Gregory B. Gajda, Gregory W. McGarr, Mykola Zhuk, Jonathan Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeam (structure)Range (aeronautics)PhysicsEnergy (signal processing)Power (physics)Materials scienceEnvironmental scienceComputational physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: ICNIRP 2020 guidelines have defined a practical temperature elevation threshold for human health effects, namely the operational adverse health effect threshold that forms the basis of the absorbed power and energy density basic restrictions. These basic restrictions for localized exposures at frequencies above 6 GHz were evaluated by comparing numerically computed temperature rise against the target temperature rise of 2.5 o C, which is the operational adverse health effect threshold divided by the occupational safety factor of 2. The numerical model employs the maximum absorbed power and energy density levels allowed by the occupational basic restriction for both pulsed and continuous wave exposures. These analyses were performed considering 3- and 4-tissue layer models and a variety of beam diameters, frequencies, and exposure durations. The smallest beam diameters were based on a study of theoretically achievable beam widths from half-wave resonant dipoles and show the impact of the averaging area on the computed temperature elevation. The results demonstrated that ICNIRP's assumed occupational safety factors in the frequency range above 6 GHz were not sufficiently maintained for all exposure scenarios and particularly for short pulse exposures at frequencies of 30 GHz or higher with small beam diameters. Worst-case tissue temperature elevations were estimated to be as much as 3.6 times higher than ICNIRP's target temperature increases. Consequently, the authors suggest a small modification in the application of the ICNIRP 2020 localized basic restrictions, thereby limiting the worst-case tissue temperature increases to 1.4 times the target value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207