Radiation Safety Expert (Health Physics)
Jobot Consulting · Newport Beach, CA · 1 mo ago
On-siteManagement$75–$100/hrContract
We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections that have real specific content. We must not repeat job title as heading. Must not include Job ID etc. Remove boilerplate, navigation, EEO, etc. Must preserve all substantive info.
We need to parse the posting.
Key info:
- Title: AI Safety Review (Remote, Contract)
- Hosted by: Augie Ullmann (maybe metadata, can be short p)
- Salary: $75 - $100 per hour
- About us: description of partner company, mission, etc.
- Why join us? bullet points: Competitive Hourly Compensation: Up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid hourly; Keep Your Current Role: Structured as supplemental work, not a career move. No requirement to leave your position; 100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones; Direct Impact on Frontier AI Safety: Your judgment shapes how leading models handle chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear subject matter; Work Inside Your Expertise: Technical review and reference writing in the domain you already practice in, not general purpose data work; Credential Respected, Not Retrained: Built for practicing specialists, with project rubrics rather than a long ramp; Growing Engagement: An expanding program with continued need across all four CBRN domains
- Job Details Key Responsibilities and Duties: list of bullet points (multiple lines). We need to extract each duty.
- Qualifications Needed: list of bullet points (multiple lines). Also includes citizenship requirement.
- Also "Interested in hearing more? Easy Apply now..." is application instruction, remove.
- Also "Jobot is an Equal Opportunity Employer..." remove.
- Also privacy policy etc remove.
We need sections: About the role (maybe the "A bit about us:" and "Why join us?" could be combined? The instruction: Use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we need to decide which sections to include based on content.
We have:
- About the role: could include description of role, what they do, maybe the "A bit about us:" and "Why join us?" but those are more about company and benefits. Could treat "About the role" as description of the job (what you'll do). But we have a separate Responsibilities section for duties. So About the role could be a brief overview: "AI Safety Review (Remote, Contract) – reviewing AI generated responses covering radiological and nuclear hazards..." etc. We can pull from the first paragraph after "Job details:" maybe.
- Responsibilities: the list under "Key Responsibilities and Duties".
- Requirements: maybe the citizenship requirement? Or maybe "Qualifications Needed" is qualifications. The instruction includes both Requirements and Qualifications as possible headings. We need to decide which to use. Usually Requirements are mandatory (education, experience, citizenship). Qualifications could be preferred or additional. But we can split: Requirements: Bachelor's degree or higher in ...; Minimum 3 years of professional experience; Must be a citizen of US, UK, Australia, NZ. Qualifications: Preferred credentials (CHP, NRRPT), familiarity with regulations, prior experience with AI safety, etc. Skills: maybe "Strong background in identifying unsafe instructions..." etc. But we can also combine.
We need to avoid thin sections. So we should include sections that have substantive content.
Let's extract substantive content:
**About the role** (overview):
- "We are partnered with a fast growing AI data services company that builds the training and evaluation data behind many of the world's leading AI labs and foundation model developers. Their work sits where technical expertise meets model safety, bringing in specialists from radiation science, nuclear engineering, chemistry, biology and emergency response to evaluate how AI systems handle high consequence subject matter. The experts on these projects shape how frontier models reason about radiological hazard, exposure and public safety, and that reach extends well beyond any single facility or licensed program. They operate remotely across time zones and build their review teams around people who are already practicing in their field. We are helping them identify radiation safety and health physics specialists for this engagement."
That's substantive.
**Responsibilities** (list):
- Review AI generated responses covering radiological and nuclear hazards, exposure pathways, dose, shielding, contamination control, emergency response and public safety topics for technical accuracy, safety framing and guideline alignment
- Flag outputs that provide dangerous procedural detail, source acquisition or diversion guidance, weaponization support, shielding or detection evasion, unsafe handling instruction, or other misuse enabling content
- Create gold standard reference content that answers benign radiological questions responsibly without introducing operationally dangerous instruction
- Evaluate and rank model outputs on safe handling, correct risk framing, appropriate refusals, helpful redirection, scientific accuracy and clarity
- Detect hallucinated claims, incorrect dose or activity figures, wrong units, misleading exposure statements, inaccurate emergency guidance and unsafe recommendations
- Apply project rubrics consistently and provide clear written feedback explaining why content is safe, unsafe, incomplete or technically incorrect
- Ensure content uses precise radiological terminology and units and communicates risk without exaggeration or minimization
- Escalate ambiguous, high risk or potentially harmful content for additional review per project guidelines
- Contribute across adjacent chemical, biological and nuclear content where your background supports it
**Requirements** (mandatory):
- Bachelor's degree or higher in Health Physics, Radiation Science, Nuclear Engineering, Physics, Medical Physics, Environmental Health and Safety or a related field, or equivalent professional experience
- Minimum 3 years of professional experience in radiation safety, health physics, radiological control, nuclear safety, dosimetry, nuclear operations or technical review
- Must be a citizen of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand
**Qualifications** (preferred/additional):
- Experience or strong background in radiological risk assessment, exposure pathways, dose assessment, ALARA practice, contamination control, shielding concepts and emergency response
- Strong background in identifying unsafe instructions, operationally enabling detail, inappropriate specificity, misleading hazard claims and unsupported technical conclusions
- Proven ability to evaluate technical content for accuracy, completeness and policy alignment, and to explain that judgment in precise written English
- Professional English proficiency at C1 minimum, sufficient to follow written guidelines and produce detailed written feedback
- Familiarity with 10 CFR 20, 10 CFR 835, NRC or Agreement State licensing, radioactive materials license conditions, or DOE radiological control requirements preferred
- CHP, NRRPT or equivalent radiation protection credential preferred
- Prior experience with AI safety, data annotation, technical QA, policy review, risk assessment, red team review, scientific review or rubric based evaluation strongly preferred
- Reliable and self directed, able to deliver consistent quality in an hourly remote contractor workflow
**Skills** maybe not needed separately; could be covered in Qualifications. But we could include a Skills section for things like "Professional English proficiency at C1", "Strong background in identifying unsafe instructions", etc. However we already have those in Qualifications. To avoid thin sections, maybe we combine Qualifications and Skills into one section called "Qualifications". But the instruction allows both; we can decide to include only Qualifications and skip Skills if it would be thin.
**Benefits**: from "Why join us?" we have bullet points that are benefits: Competitive Hourly Compensation: Up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid hourly; Keep Your Current Role: Structured as supplemental work, not a career move. No requirement to leave your position; 100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones; Direct Impact on Frontier AI Safety: Your judgment shapes how leading models handle chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear subject matter; Work Inside Your Expertise: Technical review and reference writing in the domain you already practice in, not general purpose data work; Credential Respected, Not Retrained: Built for practicing specialists, with project rubrics rather than a long ramp; Growing Engagement: An expanding program with continued need across all four CBRN domains.
These are benefits. So we can include a Benefits section with those bullet points.
**Pay**: Salary: $75 - $100 per hour. Also mention "Up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid hourly". So we can include Pay section with that info.
**Schedule**: "100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones". That's schedule info. Could be in Benefits but we could also make a Schedule section. However we already have flexible hours in Benefits. To avoid duplication, we could put schedule info in Benefits or Schedule. The instruction says include a section ONLY when posting has real specific content. We have schedule info: flexible hours, set own schedule. So we can make a Schedule section with that.
But we already have "100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones" as a benefit. If we put it in Benefits, we might duplicate if we also have Schedule. Better to keep Benefits for compensation and other perks, and Schedule for remote/flexible hours. However the benefit list includes that line; we could still include it in Benefits but also mention in Schedule. Duplication is okay? The instruction says preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail. Duplication is not prohibited but could be considered redundant. Better to avoid duplication: we can split the benefit list: keep compensation, remote/flexible hours, direct impact, work inside expertise, credential respected, growing engagement. Then Schedule section can just say "100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones". But that would duplicate the remote/flexible hours line. Could instead keep remote/flexible hours only in Schedule, and not duplicate in Benefits. Then Benefits list would exclude that line. Let's see if we can still have substantive Benefits without that line: we have Competitive Hourly Compensation, Keep Your Current Role, Direct Impact, Work Inside Your Expertise, Credential Respected, Growing Engagement. That's still substantive.
Thus:
- Benefits: bullet points (excluding remote/flexible hours).
- Schedule: bullet point (or short paragraph) about remote/flexible hours.
Now Pay: we have salary range $75 - $100 per hour. Also mention "Up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid hourly". We can combine.
Now About the role: we have the paragraph about the partner company and mission.
Now Responsibilities: list.
Now Requirements: list.
Now Qualifications: list.
Now Skills: maybe we can omit if we think Qualifications covers.
Now we need to output only HTML fragment, no markdown.
We'll use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we need to decide which sections to include based on content.
We have:
- About the role: could include description of role, what they do, maybe the "A bit about us:" and "Why join us?" but those are more about company and benefits. Could treat "About the role" as description of the job (what you'll do). But we have a separate Responsibilities section for duties. So About the role could be a brief overview: "AI Safety Review (Remote, Contract) – reviewing AI generated responses covering radiological and nuclear hazards..." etc. We can pull from the first paragraph after "Job details:" maybe.
- Responsibilities: the list under "Key Responsibilities and Duties".
- Requirements: maybe the citizenship requirement? Or maybe "Qualifications Needed" is qualifications. The instruction includes both Requirements and Qualifications as possible headings. We need to decide which to use. Usually Requirements are mandatory (education, experience, citizenship). Qualifications could be preferred or additional. But we can split: Requirements: Bachelor's degree or higher in ...; Minimum 3 years of professional experience; Must be a citizen of US, UK, Australia, NZ. Qualifications: Preferred credentials (CHP, NRRPT), familiarity with regulations, prior experience with AI safety, etc. Skills: maybe "Strong background in identifying unsafe instructions..." etc. But we can also combine.
We need to avoid thin sections. So we should include sections that have substantive content.
Let's extract substantive content:
**About the role** (overview):
- "We are partnered with a fast growing AI data services company that builds the training and evaluation data behind many of the world's leading AI labs and foundation model developers. Their work sits where technical expertise meets model safety, bringing in specialists from radiation science, nuclear engineering, chemistry, biology and emergency response to evaluate how AI systems handle high consequence subject matter. The experts on these projects shape how frontier models reason about radiological hazard, exposure and public safety, and that reach extends well beyond any single facility or licensed program. They operate remotely across time zones and build their review teams around people who are already practicing in their field. We are helping them identify radiation safety and health physics specialists for this engagement."
That's substantive.
**Responsibilities** (list):
- Review AI generated responses covering radiological and nuclear hazards, exposure pathways, dose, shielding, contamination control, emergency response and public safety topics for technical accuracy, safety framing and guideline alignment
- Flag outputs that provide dangerous procedural detail, source acquisition or diversion guidance, weaponization support, shielding or detection evasion, unsafe handling instruction, or other misuse enabling content
- Create gold standard reference content that answers benign radiological questions responsibly without introducing operationally dangerous instruction
- Evaluate and rank model outputs on safe handling, correct risk framing, appropriate refusals, helpful redirection, scientific accuracy and clarity
- Detect hallucinated claims, incorrect dose or activity figures, wrong units, misleading exposure statements, inaccurate emergency guidance and unsafe recommendations
- Apply project rubrics consistently and provide clear written feedback explaining why content is safe, unsafe, incomplete or technically incorrect
- Ensure content uses precise radiological terminology and units and communicates risk without exaggeration or minimization
- Escalate ambiguous, high risk or potentially harmful content for additional review per project guidelines
- Contribute across adjacent chemical, biological and nuclear content where your background supports it
**Requirements** (mandatory):
- Bachelor's degree or higher in Health Physics, Radiation Science, Nuclear Engineering, Physics, Medical Physics, Environmental Health and Safety or a related field, or equivalent professional experience
- Minimum 3 years of professional experience in radiation safety, health physics, radiological control, nuclear safety, dosimetry, nuclear operations or technical review
- Must be a citizen of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand
**Qualifications** (preferred/additional):
- Experience or strong background in radiological risk assessment, exposure pathways, dose assessment, ALARA practice, contamination control, shielding concepts and emergency response
- Strong background in identifying unsafe instructions, operationally enabling detail, inappropriate specificity, misleading hazard claims and unsupported technical conclusions
- Proven ability to evaluate technical content for accuracy, completeness and policy alignment, and to explain that judgment in precise written English
- Professional English proficiency at C1 minimum, sufficient to follow written guidelines and produce detailed written feedback
- Familiarity with 10 CFR 20, 10 CFR 835, NRC or Agreement State licensing, radioactive materials license conditions, or DOE radiological control requirements preferred
- CHP, NRRPT or equivalent radiation protection credential preferred
- Prior experience with AI safety, data annotation, technical QA, policy review, risk assessment, red team review, scientific review or rubric based evaluation strongly preferred
- Reliable and self directed, able to deliver consistent quality in an hourly remote contractor workflow
**Skills** maybe not needed separately; could be covered in Qualifications. But we could include a Skills section for things like "Professional English proficiency at C1", "Strong background in identifying unsafe instructions", etc. However we already have those in Qualifications. To avoid thin sections, maybe we combine Qualifications and Skills into one section called "Qualifications". But the instruction allows both; we can decide to include only Qualifications and skip Skills if it would be thin.
**Benefits**: from "Why join us?" we have bullet points that are benefits: Competitive Hourly Compensation: Up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid hourly; Keep Your Current Role: Structured as supplemental work, not a career move. No requirement to leave your position; 100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones; Direct Impact on Frontier AI Safety: Your judgment shapes how leading models handle chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear subject matter; Work Inside Your Expertise: Technical review and reference writing in the domain you already practice in, not general purpose data work; Credential Respected, Not Retrained: Built for practicing specialists, with project rubrics rather than a long ramp; Growing Engagement: An expanding program with continued need across all four CBRN domains.
These are benefits. So we can include a Benefits section with those bullet points.
**Pay**: Salary: $75 - $100 per hour. Also mention "Up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid hourly". So we can include Pay section with that info.
**Schedule**: "100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones". That's schedule info. Could be in Benefits but we could also make a Schedule section. However we already have flexible hours in Benefits. To avoid duplication, we could put schedule info in Benefits or Schedule. The instruction says include a section ONLY when posting has real specific content. We have schedule info: flexible hours, set own schedule. So we can make a Schedule section with that.
But we already have "100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones" as a benefit. If we put it in Benefits, we might duplicate if we also have Schedule. Better to keep Benefits for compensation and other perks, and Schedule for remote/flexible hours. However the benefit list includes that line; we could still include it in Benefits but also mention in Schedule. Duplication is okay? The instruction says preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail. Duplication is not prohibited but could be considered redundant. Better to avoid duplication: we can split the benefit list: keep compensation, remote/flexible hours, direct impact, work inside expertise, credential respected, growing engagement. Then Schedule section can just say "100% Remote, Flexible Hours: Set your own schedule and volume across time zones". But that would duplicate the remote/flexible hours line. Could instead keep remote/flexible hours only in Schedule, and not duplicate in Benefits. Then Benefits list would exclude that line. Let's see if we can still have substantive Benefits without that line: we have Competitive Hourly Compensation, Keep Your Current Role, Direct Impact, Work Inside Your Expertise, Credential Respected, Growing Engagement. That's still substantive.
Thus:
- Benefits: bullet points (excluding remote/flexible hours).
- Schedule: bullet point (or short paragraph) about remote/flexible hours.
Now Pay: we have salary range $75 - $100 per hour. Also mention "Up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid hourly". We can combine.
Now About the role: we have the paragraph about the partner company and mission.
Now Responsibilities: list.
Now Requirements: list.
Now Qualifications: list.
Now Skills: maybe we can omit if we think Qualifications covers.
Now we need to output only HTML fragment, no markdown.
We'll use for each section heading.
Inside sections, use - for lists,
for prose.
We need to ensure we don't include empty sections.
Let's craft.
First, maybe a short p for metadata like "Hosted by: Augie Ullmann". Could be placed in About the role or as a separate short p before sections? The instruction says do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings — fold minor metadata into a short
or drop it. So we can include a short p at top:
Hosted by: Augie Ullmann
. That's minor metadata.
Now About the role: About the role
...paragraph...
Responsibilities: Responsibilities
- ... each duty ...
Requirements: Requirements
- ... each ...
Qualifications: Qualifications
- ... each ...
Benefits: Benefits
- ... each benefit (excluding remote/flexible hours) ...
Pay: Pay
$75 - $100 per hour (up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid
- for lists,
for prose. We need to ensure we don't include empty sections. Let's craft. First, maybe a short p for metadata like "Hosted by: Augie Ullmann". Could be placed in About the role or as a separate short p before sections? The instruction says do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings — fold minor metadata into a short
or drop it. So we can include a short p at top:
Hosted by: Augie Ullmann
. That's minor metadata. Now About the role:About the role
...paragraph...
Responsibilities:Responsibilities
- ... each duty ...
Requirements
- ... each ...
Qualifications
- ... each ...
Benefits
- ... each benefit (excluding remote/flexible hours) ...
Pay
$75 - $100 per hour (up to $100/hr as an independent contractor, paid