MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052374430 · doi:10.5006/1.3319131

Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion of Nuclear Waste Containers

2009· article· en· W2052374430 on OpenAlexaff
Fraser King

Bibliographic record

VenueCORROSION · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsKintama (Canada)Vancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContainer (type theory)Radioactive wasteCorrosionEnvironmental scienceWaste managementLead (geology)Risk analysis (engineering)Forensic engineeringEngineeringBusinessChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is one of a number of threats to the long-term integrity of nuclear waste containers. As such, the potential for, and extent of, MIC must be assessed and suitable models developed for predicting the long-term behavior of the container. There are two broad approaches to assessing the threat posed by MIC; first, to determine whether the environment will support microbial activity and, if so, where and when it will occur, and second, to estimate the maximum amount of damage that could occur if microbial activity in the repository is possible. A decision-tree approach is used to present evidence for both of these approaches and to decide whether MIC is a significant threat to the integrity of the container. Examples are provided from various international nuclear waste management programs. It is concluded that microbial effects will not compromise the safety of the overall disposal system because they will not lead to either early container failures or to a large number of simultaneous failures, both factors that can lead to an increase in the peak dose.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCORROSIONSame topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207