MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

When citizen science meets radon building diagnosis: Synthesis of a French pilot project developed in the framework of the European RadoNorm research project

2023· article· en· W4385644013 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Research Europe · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEuratom Research and Training ProgrammeHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsCitizen scienceCitizen journalismRadonProcess (computing)Inclusion (mineral)Engineering managementEnvironmental planningEngineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the European RadoNorm research project, citizen science pilot projects focusing on the management of radon risk in houses have been implemented in four countries. This article describes the methodological basis, the development and the results of the French pilot project. Building on an initial review of existing literature, the pilot project aims to frame a 'participatory approach' aligned with the standards and recognized practices of citizen science. Particular attention was given to the management of data and the inclusion of ethical considerations. The focal point of the project was the process of radon building diagnosis which is supposed to be carried out whenever (high) radon concentrations are measured and should be prerequisite to mitigation works. As experience shows, however, this diagnosis is hardly implemented in France. To help remedy this situation, the pilot project recruited citizens already aware about radon from Pays Vesoul Val-de-Saône (East of France) to test an existing online self-evaluation guide for radon diagnosis, report on their operational experience and meet with radon/building experts. This enabled citizens to contribute to improvements in form and content to the guide and to ensure that it would be better fit for purpose. Comparison of the guide with experts' practices offered additional perspectives on what building diagnosis should entail. The pilot project produced rich and high-quality data that will nurture the evolution of the guide. The project demonstrated both the viability and the utility of applying the citizen science approach to radon post-measurement phases, with measurable benefits in bridging knowledge gaps and in encouraging behavioural changes. The results of using a citizen science approach in the field of radon management and research are encouraging, and they far outweigh the challenges involved in the implementation.

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.

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)0.133
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1330.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.560
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.002 · 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