MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474897955 · doi:10.2172/1235434

Results for the Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2015 Tank 50H Salt Solution Sample

2016· report· en· W2474897955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Crawford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EngineeringQuality assuranceSample (material)Waste managementEnvironmental scienceOperations managementGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this memorandum, the chemical and radionuclide contaminant results from the Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2015 (CY15) sample of Tank 50H salt solution are presented in tabulated form. The Fourth Quarter CY15 Tank 50H samples were obtained on October 29, 2015 and received at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) on October 30, 2015. The information from this characterization will be used by Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) & Saltstone Facility Engineering for the transfer of aqueous waste from Tank 50H to the Salt Feed Tank in the Saltstone Production Facility, where the waste will be treated and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. This memorandum compares results, where applicable, to Saltstone Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) limits and targets. Data pertaining to the regulatory limits for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals will be documented at a later time per the Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan (TTQAP) for the Tank 50H saltstone task. The chemical and radionuclide contaminant results from the characterization of the Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2015 (CY15) sampling of Tank 50H were requested by SRR personnel and details of the testing are presented in the SRNL Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studiesFrench-language works237,207