MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896465050 · doi:10.2172/765661

In Situ Production of Chlorine-36 in the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer, Idaho: Implications for Describing Ground-Water Contamination Near a Nuclear Facility

2000· report· en· W2896465050 on OpenAlexaff
L. DeWayne Cecil, L. L. Knobel, J R Green, Shaun K. Frape

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterAquiferGeologyRadionuclideBasaltOil shaleHydrology (agriculture)DolomiteEnvironmental scienceGeochemistryGeotechnical engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this report is to describe the calculated contribution to ground water of natural, in situ produced 36Cl in the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer and to compare these concentrations in ground water with measured concentrations near a nuclear facility in southeastern Idaho. The scope focused on isotopic and chemical analyses and associated 36Cl in situ production calculations on 25 whole-rock samples from 6 major water-bearing rock types present in the eastern Snake River Plain. The rock types investigated were basalt, rhyolite, limestone, dolomite, shale, and quartzite. Determining the contribution of in situ production to 36Cl inventories in ground water facilitated the identification of the source for this radionuclide in environmental samples. On the basis of calculations reported here, in situ production of 36Cl was determined to be insignificant compared to concentrations measured in ground water near buried and injected nuclear waste at the INEEL. Maximum estimated 36Cl concentrations in ground water from in situ production are on the same order of magnitude as natural concentrations in meteoric water.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207