Use of groundwater lifetime expectancy for the performance assessment of a deep geologic waste repository: 1. Theory, illustrations, and implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long‐term solutions for the disposal of toxic wastes usually involve isolation of the wastes in a deep subsurface geologic environment. In the case of spent nuclear fuel, if radionuclide leakage occurs from the engineered barrier, the geological medium represents the ultimate barrier that is relied upon to ensure safety. Consequently, an evaluation of radionuclide travel times from a repository to the biosphere is critically important in a performance assessment analysis. In this study, we develop a travel time framework based on the concept of groundwater lifetime expectancy as a safety indicator. Lifetime expectancy characterizes the time that radionuclides will spend in the subsurface after their release from the repository and prior to discharging into the biosphere. The probability density function of lifetime expectancy is computed throughout the host rock by solving the backward‐in‐time solute transport adjoint equation subject to a properly posed set of boundary conditions. It can then be used to define optimal repository locations. The risk associated with selected sites can be evaluated by simulating an appropriate contaminant release history. The utility of the method is illustrated by means of analytical and numerical examples, which focus on the effect of fracture networks on the uncertainty of evaluated lifetime expectancy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".