MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186381591

Geomechanical Characterisation and Long-term Emplacement room Stability Analysis, Ontario Power Generation's proposed Deep Geologic Repository, Tiverton, Ontario

2010· article· en· W2186381591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Lam, Mark S. Diederichs, Branko Damjanac

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyEvaporiteDevonianBedrockPaleozoicRadioactive wasteMining engineeringPaleontologyStructural basinGeochemistryGeomorphology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is conducting geoscientific investigations as part of an on-going Environmental Assessment for development of a Deep Geologic Repository for Ontario Power Generation’s Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste at the Bruce nuclear site, located near Tiverton, Ontario. The Bruce nuclear site is situated on the eastern flank of the Michigan Basin and is underlain by an 840 m thick Paleozoic sequence of near horizontally bedded dolostones, limestones, shales, evaporites and minor sandstones of Cambrian to Devonian age. As envisioned, the DGR would be excavated within the Cobourg Formation, a nominal 28 m thick argillaceous limestone formation at a depth of 680 m below ground surface. An important and unique aspect of the DGR is the assessment of long-term stability of the host and enclosing bedrock formations. This paper describes the geoscientific program as it relates to the derivation of geomechanical properties and characteristics, and numerical simulations performed to understand long-term formation stability and barrier integrity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207