Human exposure to ultraviolet radiation at the Antipodes - a comparison between an Antarctic (67°S) and Arctic (75°N) location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used ultraviolet radiation dosimeters to investigate human exposure at two polar latitudes with a 24-h photoperiod: at Rothera Station (UK) (67°S) and at a field camp in the Haughton impact structure in the Canadian High Arctic (75°N). Mean personal UV radiation exposure in the Antarctic location was 4.3 times greater than that in the Arctic location, even in the absence of ozone depletion. More than zenith angle accounted for the higher UV exposure. Widespread snow and ice covers, and probably less atmospheric pollution, caused higher personal exposures. Although the mean exposures were higher in the Antarctic location, the mean exposure ratio in the Antarctic (0.20-0.09) was similar to the value measured in the Arctic (0.27-0.09) on clear days. We use the Antarctic ratio to provide quantitative estimates of UV-radiation exposure for workers at the Geographical South Pole for the winter solstice under a constant 24-h photoperiod. Exposure ratios can be used to translate measurements of UV radiation by horizontally fixed spectroradiometers into estimates of the mean exposures expected in populations at polar latitudes, although variations between individuals are large. The data have implications for determining the UV exposures of indigenous high-latitude populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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; 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".