Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes recent developments in the field of nuclear waste management in Canada with a focus on management of nuclear fuel waste. Of particular significance is the April 2001 tabling in the Canadian House of Commons of Bill C-27, An Act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. At the time of finalizing this paper (January 15, 2002), Bill C-27 is in Third Reading in the House of Commons and is expected to move to the Senate in February. The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act is expected to come into force later in 2002. This Act requires the three nuclear utilities in Canada owning nuclear fuel waste to form a waste management organization and deposit funds into a segregated fund for nuclear fuel waste long-term management. The waste management organization is then required to perform a study of long-term management approaches for nuclear fuel waste and submit the study to the federal government within three years. The federal government will select an approach for implementation by the waste management organization. The paper discusses the activities that the nuclear fuel waste owners currently have underway to prepare for the formation of the waste management organization. As background, the paper reviews the status of interim storage of nuclear fuel waste in Canada, and describes previous initiatives related to the development of a national strategy for nuclear fuel waste long-term management.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".