The conservatism and uncertainty in a regulatory model for predicting derived release limits for aquatic emissions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conservatism and uncertainty in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) model for calculating derived release limits (DRLs) for aquatic emissions of radionuclides from nuclear facilities was investigated. The model was run deterministically using the recommended default values for its parameters and its predictions were compared with the distributed doses obtained by running the model stochastically. Median doses from 400 stochastic runs were higher than the deterministic doses predicted using CSA default values for more than half of the radionuclides considered. Thus the CSA model is not always conservative for calculating DRLs for aquatic emissions as it was intended to be. The uncertainty in the predicted ingestion dose was high, with the 95% confidence interval exceeding an order of magnitude for most radionuclides. A sensitivity study revealed that ingestion doses to adults predicted by the CSA model are sensitive primarily to water intake rates, bioaccumulation factors for fish and marine biota, dietary intakes of fish and marine biota, the fraction of consumed food arising from contaminated sources and irrigation rate. To improve DRL models, further research in aquatic exposure pathways should concentrate on reducing the uncertainty in these parameters.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it