Regulatory experience in applying a radiological environmental protection framework for existing and planned nuclear facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frameworks and methods for the radiological protection of non-human biota have been evolving rapidly at the International Commission on Radiological Protection and through various European initiatives. The International Atomic Energy Agency has incorporated a requirement for environmental protection in the latest revision of its Basic Safety Standards. In Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has been legally obligated to prevent unreasonable risk to the environment since 2000. Licensees have therefore been meeting generic legal requirements to demonstrate adequate control of releases of radioactive substances for the protection of both people and biota for many years. In the USA, in addition to the generic requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy facilities have also had to comply with specific dose limits after a standard assessment methodology was finalised in 2002. Canadian regulators developed a similar framework for biota dose assessment through a regulatory assessment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the late 1990s. Since then, this framework has been applied extensively to satisfy legal requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. After approximately a decade of experience in applying these methods, it is clear that simple methods are fit for purpose, and can be used for making regulatory decisions for existing and planned nuclear facilities.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".