MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035613674 · doi:10.1115/icem2011-59307

Preparing for the Construction Phase of the Port Hope Area Initiative: Canada’s Largest Low-Level Radioactive Waste Clean-Up Project

2011· article· en· W2035613674 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine A. Fahey, Glenn Case, Andrea T. Denby, Tim Palmeter

Bibliographic record

VenueASME 2011 14th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, Parts A and B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services CanadaAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadioactive wasteContainment (computer programming)Port (circuit theory)Waste managementPlan (archaeology)Work (physics)Environmental remediationRemedial actionNuclear decommissioningPhase (matter)Hazardous wasteEnvironmental planningCorporationEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringBusinessContaminationArchaeologyComputer scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) is a federally-sponsored project to clean-up the historic low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) arising from the operations of Eldorado Nuclear, a former federal crown corporation, and its private sector predecessors. The waste is mostly in the form of contaminated soil and was generated between 1932 and 1988 when Eldorado was dissolved. This paper provides a summary of the origin of the waste, the initial attempt to address the waste issue, and the current initiative which began in 2001. More specifically, this paper provides an introduction to the project and the work accomplished in Phase 1, specific details regarding the ongoing Transition Phase 1A and a sneak peak at the plan for Phase 2 when the construction and remediation activities will be performed and the wastes safely emplaced in new engineered containment mounds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME 2011 14th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, Parts A and BSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207