MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958906561

Comparative assessment of status and opportunities for carbon Dioxide Capture and storage and Radioactive Waste Disposal In North America

2011· book· en· W2958906561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Curtis M. Oldenburg, Jens Birkhölzer

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · 2011
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadioactive wasteWaste managementEnvironmental scienceCarbon dioxideHigh-level wasteEngineeringChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aside from the target storage regions being underground, geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) and radioactive waste disposal (RWD) share little in common in North America. The large volume of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) needed to be sequestered along with its relatively benign health effects present a sharp contrast to the limited volumes and hazardous nature of high-level radioactive waste (RW). There is well-documented capacity in North America for 100 years or more of sequestration of CO{sub 2} from coal-fired power plants. Aside from economics, the challenges of GCS include lack of fully established legal and regulatory framework for ownership of injected CO{sub 2}, the need for an expanded pipeline infrastructure, and public acceptance of the technology. As for RW, the USA had proposed the unsaturated tuffs of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the region's first high-level RWD site before removing it from consideration in early 2009. The Canadian RW program is currently evolving with options that range from geologic disposal to both decentralized and centralized permanent storage in surface facilities. Both the USA and Canada have established legal and regulatory frameworks for RWD. The most challenging technical issue for RWD is the need to predict repository performance on extremely long time scales (10{sup 4}-10{sup 6} years). While attitudes toward nuclear power are rapidly changing as fossil-fuel costs soar and changes in climate occur, public perception remains the most serious challenge to opening RW repositories. Because of the many significant differences between RWD and GCS, there is little that can be shared between them from regulatory, legal, transportation, or economic perspectives. As for public perception, there is currently an opportunity to engage the public on the benefits and risks of both GCS and RWD as they learn more about the urgent energy-climate crisis created by greenhouse gas emissions from current fossil-fuel combustion practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas)Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207