Canada's Approach to the Management of Used Nuclear Fuel: The Role of the Advisory Council to the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In fulfilling its mandate and presenting to the government of Canada in 2005 November its final study on the future management of Canada's used nuclear fuel, the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) received and acted upon advice from its Advisory Council. The Council was established in 2002 by the act of parliament that also established the NWMO, and its members were endorsed by the board of directors of the NWMO. That board is made up of representatives of the three Canadian utilities with nuclear fuel liabilities - Ontario Power Generation (OPG), New Brunswick Power Nuclear (NBPN) and Hydro Quebec (HQ). The other Canadian organisation owning quantities of used nuclear fuel, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), chose not to participate on the NWMO board. The Council comprises nine individuals with a range of perspectives, knowledge and experience that includes environmental law, public policy, physical and biological science, Aboriginal affairs, citizen engagement and nuclear engineering. Not surprisingly, the group holds diverse opinions on energy utilisation and some members are particularly divided on the deployment of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in spite of the tensions that such diversity can generate, members have met their responsibilities and conducted their business effectively, debating and discussing the Council's agenda in an atmosphere of professionalism and mutual respect. This paper recounts the activities of the Council in coming to agreement on its continuing advice to the NWMO and in reaching consensus on its general support for the concept of Adaptive Phased Management (APM) for Canada's used nuclear fuel.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".