MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385304544 · doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2023.06.005

Space agency-specific standards for crew dose and risk assessment of ionising radiation exposures for the International Space Station

2023· article· de· W4385304544 on OpenAlexaff
M. R. Shavers, E. Semones, Leena Tomi, Jing Chen, U. Straube, Tatsuto Komiyama, Vyacheslav Shurshakov, Chunsheng Li, W. Rühm

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Medizinische Physik · 2023
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaCanadian Space Agency
FundersGSI Helmholtzzentrum für SchwerionenforschungRussian Academy of SciencesJohnson Space CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCrewInternational Space StationSpace radiationIonizing radiationSpace (punctuation)Agency (philosophy)SpaceflightRadiation protectionInternational agencyRisk assessmentAeronauticsRadiation exposureEnvironmental scienceMedical physicsBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceAerospace engineeringMedicinePhysicsNuclear medicineComputer securityIrradiationNuclear physicsCosmic ray

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Partner Agencies of the International Space Station (ISS) maintain separate career exposure limits and shared Flight Rules that control the ionising radiation exposures that crewmembers can experience due to ambient environments throughout their space missions. In low Earth orbit as well as further out in space, energetic ions referred to as galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) easily penetrate spacecraft and spacecraft contents and consequently are always present at low dose rates. Protons and electrons that are trapped in the Earth's geomagnetic field are encountered intermittently, and a rare energetic solar particle event (SPE) may expose crew to (mostly) energetic protons. Space radiation protection goals are to optimize radiation exposures to maintain deleterious late effects at known and acceptable levels and to prevent any early effects that might compromise crew health and mission success. The conventional radiation protection metric effective dose provides a basic framework for limiting exposures associated with human spaceflight and can be communicated to all stakeholders. Additional metrics and uncertainty analyses are required to understand more completely and to convey nuanced information about potential impacts to an individual astronaut or to a space mission. Missions to remote destinations well beyond low Earth orbit (BLEO) are upcoming and bestow additional challenges that shape design and radiation protection needs. NASA has recently adopted a more permissive career exposure limit based upon effective dose and new restrictions on mission exposures imposed by nuclear technologies. This manuscript reviews the exposure limits that apply to the ISS crewmembers. This work was performed in collaboration with the advisory and guidance efforts of International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Task Group 115 and will be summarized in an upcoming ICRP Report.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Medizinische PhysikSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207