MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387831488 · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/60/1a/06020

EURAMET supplementary comparison of personal dose equivalent rate at 0.07 mm and 3 mm depth, <i>H</i> <sub>p</sub>(0.07) and <i>H</i> <sub>p</sub>(3), for beta radiation

2023· article· en· W4387831488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Behrens, J. V. Cardoso, Milagros Pozuelo, Viktória Finta, Renáta Botos, Linda Persson, J. Huikari, C Lecante, Dehong Li, Chul‐Young Yi, Yun Ho Kim, Chien-Hau Chu, Masahiro Kato, R. Pepenene, Sibusiso Jozela, José Trinidad Álvarez Romero, A.M.L. MacLeod, Michael G. Mitch, Gonzalo Walwyn Salas, Niurka Gonzalez Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueMetrologia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclideNuclear medicineRadiationDose rateAbsorbed dosePhysicsQuality assuranceRadiochemistryNuclear physicsMaterials scienceMedical physicsChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Main text For quality assurance in the realization and transfer of the unit of the absorbed dose rate at 0.07 mm tissue depth for beta radiation by the national standard laboratories, comparison measurements, especially between the primary standard facilities are needed. A corresponding comparison took place from 2004 to 2007 as EUROMET project No. 739. The comparison described in this report took place from 2018 to 2023 with the following extensions: instead of only eight laboratories, this time 16 participants from all parts of the world (five continents) were included; besides the absorbed dose rate at 0.07 mm tissue depth, 3 mm tissue depth was included for the first time; three different types of primary standards and radiation sources of four differing design types were used; one laboratory participated at an extreme altitude of 3000 m above sea level which required a very significant correction for air density to the dose rate; finally, besides the long-established beta reference radiation fields from the three radio nuclides 1. 147 Pm with E̅ = 0.07 MeV and E max = 0.22 MeV, 2. 85 Kr with E̅ = 0.25 MeV and E max = 0.7 MeV, and 3. 90 Sr/ 90 Y with E̅ = 0.8 MeV and E max = 2.3 MeV, also a fourth, i.e., a high-energy radiation field utilizing 4. 106 Ru/ 106 Rh with E̅ = 1.2 MeV and E max = 3.5 MeV, was included for the first time; all four in accordance with the international standard series ISO 6980 from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). A flat ionization chamber accompanied by a complete measurement system was used as the transfer instrument for the comparison. The calibration coefficients of this chamber were compared in the reference fields listed above. The 16 participants were from Germany (PTB), Portugal (IST-LPSR), Spain (CIEMAT), Hungary (BFKH), Sweden (SSM), Finland (STUK), France (LNE-LNHB), China (NIM), Republic of Korea (KRISS), Taiwan (INER), Japan (NMIJ), South Africa (NMISA), Mexico (ININ), Canada (NRC), United States of America (NIST), and Cuba (CPHR). The PTB was the pilot laboratory, and the comparison ran under EURAMET Project No. 1398 and BIPM KCDB: EURAMET.RI(I)-S16. The results from 13 of the 16 participants are consistent with the stated uncertainties while one participant's results agree for normal radiation incidence (0°) but not for oblique angles, one participant's results agree for the quantity H p (0.07) but not for H p (3) and one participant's results agree for the 90 Sr/ 90 Y radiation quality but not for 85 K. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCRI, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetrologiaSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207