MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current Status of Radioactive Waste Management in Korea

2009· article· en· W2170778218 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Atomic Energy Research Institute
KeywordsRadioactive wasteNuclear powerSpent nuclear fuelWaste managementInterimEnvironmental scienceNuclear fuelBusinessNuclear engineeringEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Korean energy security is dependent on the peaceful and safe utilization of nuclear energy. The Korean government’s policy on nuclear energy can be summarized with two principles: promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and ensuring its safe use and storage. Since April 1978 Korea has strongly relied on nuclear energy for its electricity generation. As of today, 20 nuclear power plants, 16 pressurized water reactors PWRs and 4 Canada Deuterium Uranium CANDU reactors are in operation, and 4 PWRs are under construction. The installed nuclear capacity is 17.7 GWe, representing 27% of the nation’s total installed capacity. The nuclear share in electricity remains at around 37.8%, reaching a level of 146.8 TWh. New power reactors in Korea Standard Nuclear Power Plants are fully designed by domestic technologies. A more advanced reactor named AP1400 will be commissioned in 2020. The Achilles’ heel of nuclear energy is radioactive waste. Even though proper scientific management of radioactive waste has been found and proved safe for lowand intermediate-level waste LILW disposal and an interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and even the introduction of permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste HLW is envisaged to be feasible, the public perception on these issues is not supportive. The public’s everlasting “not in my backyard” refrain has hindered the implementation of Korea’s radioactive waste management program for the last two decades. Overcoming the safety issues involved in radioactive waste management is not a simple scientific problem. It requires attention to both state-of-the-art science and technology and the psychology of the general and local public. In fact, it is a transscientific issue, a fusion of science and socioeconomic studies. The Korean Atomic Energy Commission provided clear milestones for constructing two key facilities: the LILW repository by 2008 and the centralized storage for spent fuel by 2016. With the full support of the Korean government, institutes, and general public, Korea Hydro Nuclear Power KHNP secured a site for the LILW repository in 2005. An underground repository with the capacity for 100,000 drums is under construction, and will be in commission by 2012. Long-term safe management of spent nuclear fuel is necessary not only to store spent fuel over a long period of time but also to potentially recycle it under full observance of the nuclear nonproliferation duties. The permanent disposal of HLW is the research and development R&D topic for a future generation and involves protecting the environment and minimizing the economic burden. Since 1997 Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute KAERI has been developing a permanent disposal facility for HLW and a total system performance assessment TSPA . Its current R&D activities are focused on the preliminary conceptual design of the Korean Reference Disposal System KRS , development of the

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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