MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281783324 · doi:10.1088/1681-7575/ac73c8

Adoption of ICRU report 90 recommendations in the Canadian Co-60 air-kerma primary standard

2022· article· en· W4281783324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ernesto Mainegra‐Hing

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKermaAlgorithmComputer sciencePhysicsMaterials scienceNuclear medicineMedicineDosimetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian air-kerma primary standard for 60 Co beams is updated according to ICRU report 90 (ICRU-90) recommendations. The effect of these recommendations and a more detailed chamber model on the primary standard is investigated. Dosimetric quantities and corrections required for the realization of air kerma are calculated using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) simulation system. The validity of Spencer–Attix (SA) cavity theory as function of Δ, the secondary particle production threshold energy, is investigated to assess the accuracy of its current selection criterion. Although individual changes in some correction factors are statistically non-negligible, the overall effect amounts to only a 0.04% increase of the standard. The mean restricted mass electronic stopping power ratio graphite to air, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math> decreases from the previous value of 1.0010 to a value of 0.9949. If this value is used with the recommended W air value of 33.97 eV, the effect on the standard is a reduction of 0.613%. When the recommended <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>air</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>g,</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="thinmathspace"/><mml:mtext>a</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math> value of 33.72 eV is used instead, the change results in a 0.835% reduction in K air . Using SA cavity theory to obtain K air with a Δ value of 20 keV, corresponding to the cavity’s mean chord length, reproduces a direct MC calculation at the 0.03% level. Type B uncertainties due to uncertainty in the photon and electron cross sections for the largest corrections K wall and K comp are estimated to be 0.01% and 0.10%, respectively. No statistically significant effect on the standard is observed due to changes in the correction factors. Fano tests and comparison to single scattering calculations demonstrate EGSnrc’s electron transport algorithm accuracy to be within 0.03% relative to its own cross sections. The latter also validates the criterion for selecting Δ based on the average chord length of the chamber’s cavity. A 0.2% difference in the restricted stopping power ratio obtained in this work and the value resulting from ICRU-90 recommendations has the potential for affecting standards relying on the absolute value of W air , thus further investigation is granted. The current update results in a 0.8% decrease of the Canadian 60 Co air-kerma primary standard with a reduced uncertainty of 0.2%. This change is in excellent agreement with the reported change to the BIPM 60 Co air-kerma standard.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetrologiaSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207