Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki (H/N) studies by the Radiation Effect Research Foundation have not shown increased leukaemia for acute doses below 200 milli-gray (mGy). By contrast the INWORKS study of leukaemia in workers stated: "This study provides strong evidence of positive associations between protracted low-dose radiation exposure and leukemia". The INWORKS study also claimed increased leukaemia, not including Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia, at cumulative occupational doses of less than 100 mGy. This is contrary to the expectation that the H/N studies would show more severe effects than the worker study because the doses were acute instead of chronic and because the H/N studies included children who had higher rates of radiation induced leukaemia than adults. This paper shows that the INWORKS leukaemia study is consistent with the H/N studies in showing no increase in leukaemia in the low-dose range. In addition, any increase in leukaemia is confined to Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia, possibly from high radiation dose-rates or chemicals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".