Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radioactive waste classification systems have been developed to allow wastes having similar hazards to be grouped for purposes of storage, treatment, packaging, transportation, and/or disposal. As recommended in the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements' Report No. 139, Risk-Based Classification of Radioactive and Hazardous Chemical Wastes, a preferred classification system would be based primarily on the health risks to the public that arise from waste disposal and secondarily on other attributes such as the near-term practicalities of managing a waste, i.e., the waste classification system would be risk informed. The current U.S. radioactive waste classification system is not risk informed because key definitions--especially that of high-level waste--are based on the source of the waste instead of its inherent characteristics related to risk. A second important reason for concluding the existing U.S. radioactive waste classification system is not risk informed is there are no general principles or provisions for exempting materials from being classified as radioactive waste which would then allow management without regard to its radioactivity. This paper elaborates the current system for classifying and reclassifying radioactive wastes in the United States, analyzes the extent to which the system is risk informed and the ramifications of its not being so, and provides observations on potential future direction of efforts to address shortcomings in the U.S. radioactive waste classification system as of 2004.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".