SITE SELECTION FOR CANADA’S NATIONAL REPOSITORY FOR USED NUCLEAR FUEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, the Government of Canada selected Adaptive Phased Management as Canada’s plan for the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel. The approach provides for containment and isolation of the material in a deep geological repository at a safe site with an informed and willing host. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is tasked through federal legislation with selecting the site and developing and managing all aspects of the plan. In May 2010, the organization published and initiated the site selection process that serves as a road map for decision making on the location for the deep geological repository. It continues to lead the site selection process for the repository and an associated Centre of Expertise. The screening process is advancing and, from an initial starting point of 22 communities expressing interest in learning about the project; as of September 2015, 9 communities are the focus of more detailed technical and community well-being studies. Preliminary Assessments, the third step in the 9-step site selection process are underway in these communities. The Assessments involve preliminary technical and social desktop and field assessments, engagement activities within and beyond each interested community, and involvement of Indigenous peoples and nearby municipalities in the planning and conduct of the work. This paper provides an update on the advancement of the site selection process. It describes the nature of the technical and social studies being conducted at this phase of work, including the progressively more detailed field studies that are the focus of technical work at the current stage, the approach to engagement and collaboration with communities to direct these studies, and the work underway to ensure the framework used for this assessment and engagement includes the range of priorities and perspectives of First Nations and Métis peoples and communities in the broader area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.016 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".