MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183298644

Canada’s Deep Geological Repository For Used Nuclear Fuel –The Geoscientific Site Evaluation Process

2013· article· en· W2183298644 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alec Blyth, Mahrez Ben Belfadhel, Sarah Hirschorn, Duncan Hamilton, Jennifer McKelvie

Bibliographic record

VenueAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSite selectionSpent nuclear fuelContainment (computer programming)Radioactive wasteProcess (computing)Government (linguistics)EngineeringEnvironmental scienceMining engineeringEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceWaste managementPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is responsible for implementing Adaptive Phased Management (APM), the approach selected by the Government of Canada for long-term management of used nuclear fuel generated by Canadian nuclear reactors. The ultimate objective of APM is the centralized containment and isolation of Canada's used nuclear fuel in a Deep Geological Repository in a suitable rock formation at a depth of approximately 500 meters (m) (1,640 feet [ft]). In May 2010, the NWMO published a nine-step site selection process that serves as the road map to decision-making on the location for the deep geological repository. The safety and appropriateness of any potential site will be assessed against a number of factors, both technical and social in nature. The selected site will be one that can be demonstrated to be able to safely contain and isolate used nuclear fuel, protecting humans and the environment over the very long term. The geo-scientific suitability of potential candidate sites will be assessed in a stepwise manner following a progressive and thorough site evaluation process that addresses a series of geo-scientific factors revolving around five safety functions. The geo-scientific site evaluation process includes: Initial Screenings; Preliminary Assessments; and Detailed Site Evaluations. Asmore » of November 2012, 22 communities have entered the site selection process (three in northern Saskatchewan and 18 in northwestern and southwestern Ontario). (authors)« less

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGU Fall Meeting AbstractsSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207