MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182919770

NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITES IN CANADA: AN OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE AT HISTORIC WASTE SITES

2001· article· en· W2182919770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pabitra L. De, C. H. Clement, Robert L. Zelmer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadioactive wasteInterimContext (archaeology)BusinessCommissionAgency (philosophy)LegislationEnvironmental planningEngineeringWaste managementEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceFinanceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is Canada’s nuclear regulator (formerly the Atomic Energy Control Board) operating under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which was promulgated in May 2000. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) has been Canada’s agency for the management of historic low-level radioactive waste sites since 1982. Operations of the LLRWMO at presently contaminated sites, interim storage sites and future disposal sites, must now consider the new regulatory context. A major change affecting the operations of the LLRWMO is that CNSC licensing decisions are now triggered based on total activity instead of specific activity or concentration as in the past. The paper discusses the impacts of this and other changes in the new act and new regulations on the operation of established facilities and programs of the LLRWMO. Among these are future cleanup activities at known and yet to be encountered sites. This paper will interest stakeholders in Canada and observers of regulatory practices elsewhere. Among the conclusions is the realization that through the immediate phase-in period of the next year or so, cooperation and action involving both regulators and licensees is essential to effect the necessary change.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207