Comparison of dose and risk estimates between ISS Partner Agencies for a 30-day lunar mission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Partner Agencies of the International Space Station (ISS) present a comparison of the ionizing radiation absorbed dose and risk quantities used to characterize example missions in lunar space. This effort builds on previous collaborative work that characterizes radiation environments in space to support radiation protection for human spaceflight on ISS in low-Earth orbit (LEO) and exploration missions beyond (BLEO). A "shielded" ubiquitous galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) environment combined with--and separate from--the transient challenge of a solar particle event (SPE) was modelled for a simulated 30-day mission period. Simple geometries of relatively thin and uniform shields were chosen to represent the space vehicle and other available shielding, and male or female phantoms were used to represent the body's self-shielding. Absorbed dose in organs and tissues and the effective dose were calculated for males and females. Risk parameters for cancer and other outcomes are presented for selected organs. The results of this intracomparison between ISS Partner Agencies itself provide insights to the level of agreement with which space agencies can perform organ dosimetry and calculate effective dose. This work was performed in collaboration with the advisory and guidance efforts of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Task Group 115 and will be presented in an 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".