A comparative analysis of risk assessment methodologies for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a broad summary of the most common risk assessment methodologies for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. We believe it is valuable to compare these methodologies, particularly in the areas where they lead to similar conclusions. The objective of this paper is to provide a better understanding of the current similarities and differences of these proposed methodologies. Since CCS was proposed as a mitigation option for reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, several attempts have been made to study the potential risks of long-term storage of CO2 in geological formations. Various worldwide projects have tried different industrial methods adapted to GSC. In spite of these efforts, currently there is no standardised method or set of methods for evaluating risk and/or uncertainty for GSC projects. Application or adaptation of advanced industrial quantitative risk assessment methods seems not convenient at this point because of lack of specific data. The development of frameworks and qualitative methods looks the most trustable for current projects.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it