MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

North Korean nuclear test of October 9th, 2006: The utilization of health Canada’s radionuclide monitoring network and environment Canada’s atmospheric transport and dispersion modelling

2012· article· en· W6884597830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadionuclideAtmospheric dispersion modelingDispersion (optics)TreatyRadioactive wasteNuclear explosionNuclear testHuman health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since January 1959, Health Canada has monitored environmental levels of radioactive fallout, to ensure the health and well being of Canadians. This work has evolved to include explosion verification for the Comprehensive nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty by monitoring the concentration of radioxenon in the atmosphere. Detection of Xe at Yellowknife by the monitoring system of Health Canada combined with the atmospheric transport and dispersion models (ATDM) of Environment Canada and seismic timing data have shown that the source of this Xe was most likely from the North Korean nuclear test of October 9th, 2006. Historical and real time monitoring data on the distribution of Xe releases from Chalk River Labs, the major source of anthropogenic background to Yellowknife were studied. Careful review of other large Xe-133 measurements at Yellowknife with ATDM was used to understand the October 2006 measurements of Xe. This allowed us to conclude that the Xe-133 detected at Yellowknife could be attributed to a release from the October nuclear test in North Korea. Health Canada and Environment Canada have demonstrated that Xe detection combined with ATDM is a viable technology for treaty verification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207