The 2003 revision of the NRC standard for air-kerma in a ⁶⁰Co beam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Research Council of Canada’s standard for air-kerma in a ⁶⁰Co beam has remained fixed since 1990. As a result of a re-evaluation of various correction factors and an effort to make a realistic assessment of the uncertainties on Monte Carlo calculated correction factors, the NRC standard changed on Oct 1, 2003. The overall increase in the standard is 0.59% and the overall uncertainty on the standard has been reduced to 0.28%. This is a correction in the factors used, not the measurement data, and thus ⁶⁰Co air-kerma calibration factors received from NRC prior to Oct 1, 2003 can be converted to values consistent with the new standard by multiplying the old factor by 1.0059. The present change has no impact on either the absorbed dose to water standards at NRC or the air-kerma standards based on free-air chambers. On the other hand, the change directly affects the standards in ¹³⁷Cs beams which are obtained using chambers calibrated using the ⁶⁰Co standard. A result of the changes at NRC and related changes at NIST is that the ratio of the ⁶⁰Co air-kerma standards at NRC and NIST is now 1.0015, well within the uncertainties of the comparison. This compares well to the previous value of 1.0061.
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 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 | 0.197 | 0.559 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".