Evaluation of approaches for protecting the environment from ionising radiation in a regulatory context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dissemination level: PU Date of issue of this report: 07/11/08 with a highly conservative 'screening tier' and progress, if required, to more refined assessment.This procedure is described further within section 3.2. OrganismsTerms are used for the organisms being assessed in the different approaches, include: 'reference organism', 'representative species', 'feature species' and 'receptor'.In many, although not all approaches, these terms are used for a set of default organisms (e.g.FASSET, EPIC, ERICA, RESRAD-BIOTA and R&D 128) for which default transfer parameters values and/or models, geometries and associated dosimetry coefficients, habitat assumptions etc. are provided.In selecting these reference organisms a number of factors have generally been considered so that they represent or encompass various criteria such as: organisms likely to be amongst the most exposed; different trophic levels; species of protected status; and organisms sensitive to radiation.However, in other approaches species may be chosen both from a scientific point of view and from a public interest perspective and are classified in Canada as 'valued ecosystem components'.This differs from the concept of reference organisms, as in Canada the focus has been on species of interest locally (although in selecting these, consideration is given to ensuring a cross-section of exposure pathways, trophic positions, radionuclides etc. are included) (Beresford et al. 2007a).
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 | 0.169 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".