Excess relative risk (ERR) estimates from the A-bomb survivors and from selected studies of persons exposed to protracted low-LET external ionizing radiation.
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
<p>* Doses are external colon dose in mGy for Mayak workers, weighted colon dose in mGy for the atomic bomb survivors, Hp(10) in mSv for the 15-country and NRRW studies.(Hp(10) is the equivalent dose at a tissue depth of 10 mm beneath a dosimeter); stomach dose in mGy for the Techa river cohort</p><p>† 90% confidence intervals used for comparison with published results in the 15-country and NRRW studies</p><p>†† weighted average with weights of 0.75 for men and 0.25 for women to reflect the sex ratio in the Mayak worker cohort</p><p>‡ These populations are predominantly male</p><p>§ The estimate presented here is based on the 15-country study results withwith the Canadian data excluded ([<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0117784#pone.0117784.ref029" target="_blank">29</a>], page 405).). This estimate was used because of concerns about the Canadian data usedused in that study. This concerns have beenbeen supported by the recently published re-analysis of the Canadian workerworker data given in [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0117784#pone.0117784.ref034" target="_blank">34</a>]. The ERR/SvSv estimate for using all of the 15-country data is 0.59 (95% CI <0 to 1.5, [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0117784#pone.0117784.ref029" target="_blank">29</a>], page 403).</p><p>** There was no evidence that risk differed by sex in this cohort.</p><p>Excess relative risk (ERR) estimates from the A-bomb survivors and from selected studies of persons exposed to protracted low-LET external ionizing radiation.</p>
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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