MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149519620 · doi:10.1039/b111579k

Analysis and processing of samples for a carbon-14 monitoring program at a radioactive waste storage site

2002· article· en· W2149519620 on OpenAlexafffund
Fran ois Caron, M.L. Benz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersCANDU Owners Group
KeywordsPelletsLiquid scintillation countingPelletEnvironmental scienceSampling (signal processing)RadionuclideMicroporous materialWaste managementChemistryRadiochemistryEnvironmental chemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A monitoring program was undertaken to determine the levels of airborne radioactive 14CO2 in an operating waste management area, and it its vicinity. As a part of this program, alkaline microporous pellets, recently developed, were used to sample the 14CO2 in air near waste storage structures and near the waste management area. These pellets were never fully characterized for their ability to capture high levels of 14CO2, and the processing and analysis needed to be improved to provide data on recoveries and consistencies, for an eventual method validation, with independent calibrations and standards. The sample analysis scheme also had to accommodate 14CO2 levels varying from near the natural background (250 Bq kg-1 C), to potentially three to four orders of magnitude above this value, near the wastes. The porous alkaline solid pellets were used for the passive capture of airborne 14CO2 over a period of weeks, to a few months. The pellets were processed to release the captured CO2 (14CO2 and 12CO2) into a NaOH solution, which was subsequently analyzed by liquid scintillation. Processing of the pellets yielded a 14C recovery of 96.0 +/- 4.2% and a lower, but consistent total carbon recovery, i.e., 85.9 +/- 2.7 and 86.9 +/- 2.6%, for procedural blanks and standards, respectively. The detection limits for the pellet sampling and processing was sufficient to reach environmental levels. For the higher levels of 14CO2 and for 'spot' sampling, we also used air samples, pumped into a NaOH solution to trap the 14CO2. These NaOH solutions were counted directly for 14C, also by liquid scintillation. The method limits of this latter technique, although much higher than for pellet samples, also achieved the performance objective for detecting airborne 14CO2. Both sampling and processing techniques, when used together, provided sufficient flexibility to be used for low (environmental) levels and high levels, near the wastes.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207