MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388732303 · doi:10.53555//sfs.v9i1.1769

The Study Of Radon/Thoron And Progeny Concentration In The District Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India Using SSNTDS

2022· article· en· W4388732303 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rajnish Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, Anil Kumar, Kapil Vats, R.B.S. Rawat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadonNuclear trackEffective dose (radiation)CR-39RadiochemistryDosimeterEnvironmental scienceRadon gasSolid-stateNuclear medicineEnvironmental chemistryChemistryDosimetryMedicineIrradiationPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Annual radon and thoron exposure imparts a major contribution to inhalation doses received by the public. we have found the results of Indoor radon and thoron concentrations were measured passively over time in the Haridwar region, with health hazards to residents. In the current study Solid State Nuclear Track Detectors (SSNTDS) based twin chamber dosimeters, i.e. pin-hole dosimeters with LR-115 track detectors, were utilized to estimate Radon (Rn) and Thoron (Rn) gas concentration levels in Haridwar houses. DRPS and DTPS were used for estimating the radon progeny concentration and thoron progeny concentration. The average Radon concentration levels studied in houses were found the values from 15.75 Bq/m3 to 52.13 Bq/m³ and thoron concentrations is found to vary from 9.71 Bq/m3 to 31.89 Bq/m³ and its corresponding geometric mean of Radon and thoron concentration were found 25.58 Bq/m³ and 17.04 Bq/m³.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.415
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.003 · 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 designObservational
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 venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207