MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041917514 · doi:10.1080/01971520600873293

Is Nuclear Power Environmentally Sustainable?

2007· article· en· W2041917514 on OpenAlex
David Jackson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Green Energy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear transmutationSustainabilityNuclear powerNuclear fissionRadioactive wasteSpent nuclear fuelLong-lived fission productNuclear fuel cycleEnvironmental scienceProduction (economics)Waste managementNuclear fuelNuclear reactorNuclear engineeringFissionEngineeringFission product yieldNeutronNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sustainability of nuclear energy is discussed in terms of its environmental impacts and its utilization of resources. The reactors in the present generation of fission reactors extract only a small percentage of the energy available from uranium. A solution to the long-term management of highly radioactive used reactor fuel is also a key factor in fission's sustainability. Recycling used fuel for enhanced energy production in advanced reactors and the mitigation of the long-term management of the remaining wastes, ideally with their ultimate destruction by nuclear transmutation, are technologies that need to be developed in order to ensure the long term sustainability of nuclear fission. In contrast, nuclear fusion, while not yet available for power production, promises to be inherently sustainable.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.179 · 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