Corrigendum: Monte Carlo calculation of <sup>119</sup>Sb microscale absorbed dose using cascaded and averaged Auger electron spectra (2025 <i>Phys. Med. Biol.</i> 70 115022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An error in the original manuscript was identified regarding the use of Auger transition data from the Evaluated Atomic Data Library (EADL). In the original publication, electron energies and transition probabilities for Auger, Coster-Kronig, and super Coster-Kronig transitions were retrieved from the EADL for Sb in order to compare with data for119Sbavailable from the Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) RADTABS program. However, data for Sn should have been retrieved instead. Here we present a corrected comparison of individual transitions using the EADL transition data for the daughter atoms. Our findings reflect a much-improved comparison between MIRD and EADL. The other conclusions in the original publication are not affected. We regret that this error was caught neither in the preparation of the manuscript nor in the peer review process, and we apologize for any confusion we may have caused.
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 | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.083 |
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".