Radiological protection of non-human biota: International safety standards, national implementation, and policy implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiological protection was historically focused on human health, based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s premise that “If man is adequately protected then other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected.” In recent decades, however, international frameworks have evolved to include direct protection of non-human biota. This study reviews the evolution of conceptual and regulatory frameworks for non-human biota protection, focusing on changes in international recommendations concerning reference organisms or reference animals and plants, dose criteria, dose coefficients, relative biological effectiveness, as well as the development and application of dose assessment tools. In addition, case studies of nuclear facilities—including nuclear power plants and radioactive waste repositories—are compared across Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which apply country-specific dose criteria, and Finland and Sweden, which adopt the European Union screening value (10 μGy/h). No ecologically significant effects have been assessed at the population level in these case studies. Despite international recommendations for the direct protection of non-human biota, the extent and scope of national implementation differ considerably. Therefore, this study proposes a screening approach to evaluate whether direct protection of non-human biota is warranted, based on retrospective assessments of potential radiological impacts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it