(Un)stated assumptions: values, ethics, and the System of Radiological Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issues of what is ‘safe’ and what is an ‘unreasonable risk’ pre-occupy regulators each and every day. Western science alone is inadequate as a guide. Good advice and good decision-making require consideration of Western science in tandem with traditional knowledge, our personal and organisational ethics and values, and our shared experiences. As the global information environment grows increasingly complex, it is more crucial than ever that international organisations, such as ICRP, and national regulators, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, are clear about their ethical guideposts and their core values. Clarity in these anchors allows policy makers and regulators to communicate the rationale for decisions more clearly, and to combat disinformation and misinformation more effectively – a challenge that demands action from us all. As we look towards revising the System of Radiological Protection and implementing it in international and national regulatory systems around the world, codifying and communicating our underpinning assumptions will clearly enhance our credibility and trust, and will enable more effective combination of the guidance offered by the System of Radiological Protection with relevant national considerations, including factors such as societal risk tolerance and indigenous knowledge.
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 | 0.043 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".