Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns about the impact of hydrocarbon use on climate and global warming are significantly growing. Furthermore, we are all well aware that security of supply is increasingly an issue. In this context, it is now principally recognised that nuclear energy has to be back on the agenda. All in all, the prospects for the nuclear power industry and thus for the uranium activities is very positive for the coming years. The changes that have taken place in the international uranium market during the past several years are remarkable. Since 2002, the uranium prices have increased more than tenfold. The spot market price of uranium began an increase from about USD 9/lb U 3 O 8 in mid 2001 following a fire at the Olympic Dam mill (Australia) in October 2001 and was propelled in subsequent years by a series of interrupting events, such as the mine shaft flooding at the McArthur River mine (Canada) in April 2003, the threat of the early shutdown of the Rossing mine (Namibia) and the Ranger mine (Australia) in 2003, the decision of Techsnabexport (Tenex, Russia) in October 2003 to terminate sales of UF6 to the US trading company Globe Nuclear Services and Supply GNSS Ltd. (GNSS), and finally the complete flooding at the developing Cigar Lake mine (Canada) in October 2006. With the emergence of hedge funds and investors, that began in late 2004, increased uranium demand and upward pressure on market prices were further stimulated. What about the recent events and trends in the uranium industry? Are the uranium producers and the utilities well prepared to meet all the challenges associated with developments in the uranium business? And what about the risks, uncertainties and other factors that could affect the developments in the uranium industry and uranium markets?
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".