MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation of the Dosimetry Characteristics of the GAFCHROMIC® EBT3 Film Response to Alpha Particle Irradiation

2023· article· en· W4388698802 on OpenAlexaff
Mélodie Cyr, Victor D. Martinez, Slobodan Dević, Nada Tomic, David F. Lewis, Shirin A. Enger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryMonte Carlo methodIrradiationMaterials scienceCalibrationCalibration curveOpticsScannerNuclear medicinePhysicsMathematicsNuclear physicsStatisticsMedicineDetection limit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of the GAFCHROMIC® EBT3 film responding to alpha particle irradiation. Unlaminated GAFCHROMIC® EBT3 film pieces, were irradiated with a 30.055 kBq 241 Am alpha source, at eight different dose levels, between 0 and 509 Gy. The irradiations were performed inside an enclosed box. Epson Expression 10000 XL scanner in transmission mode was used to digitize irradiated films 24 hours post-irradiations as 16-bit RGB images in tagged image file format (TIFF). Optical density (OD) values were obtained by following the OD theorem. Raw and normalized pixel values (PV norm ) from the red, green, and blue colour channels were sampled from a 3 × 3 mm 2 region of interest. Calibration curves were created for both data sets (OD and PV norm ) and were fit accordingly. Monte Carlo simulations with the Geant4 toolkit were performed to establish a dose rate at the point within the sensitive layer of the film. An alpha dosimetry protocol for EBT3 films was obtained from the Monte Carlo calculated dose rate and dose calibration curves for alpha radiation were created. It is necessary to extend this study for different film types and compare to photon dosimetry calibration curves.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207